our Case

Jakiche v. Board of Regents of the University of New Mexico

LJC holds medical institutions accountable for utilizing race-based criteria in admissions processes.

About Jakiche v. Board of Regents of the University of New Mexico

The Liberty Justice Center represents Michael Jakiche in a challenge to the University of New Mexico (UNM) School of Medicine’s admissions practices.

Despite an exceptional academic record—including top grades, test schools, research experience, and publications—Jakiche was denied admission in consecutive admission years. In both 2024 and 2025, UNM’s advisement materials and decision correspondence expressly referenced “diversity” as a factor in ranking and selection—nearly a year after the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard and the University of North Carolina, which held that race-based admissions and reliance on “student body diversity” as a compelling interest are unlawful.

In 2024, Mr. Jakiche received an 86.9 admissions score (below the 88.0 minimum for admission and above the 80.3 waitlist minimum), placing him 23rd on the waitlist. Only 17 were ultimately admitted from that year’s waitlist. In 2025, after strengthening his record by graduating summa cum laude from Arizona State University’s Barrett Honors College with a degree in Biophysics and taking on clinical roles as a nurse aide and emergency room scribe, he was scored 82.0 (below the 84.0 waitlist threshold). When asked, the school maintained that applicants were ranked based on “individual qualities” as well as “the experiences and diversity that they will contribute to the entering class.” The Associate Dean’s letters again cited “diversity” among selection criteria and explained that ‘soft’ factors such as interview scores had been employed to outweigh his academic record.

The Federal Constitution and Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibit public institutions, and recipients of federal funds, from using race as a factor in admissions or from justifying decisions on diversity grounds, requiring instead that applicants be evaluated as individuals without racial preferences.

The case was filed October 28, 2025, in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. LJC’s complaint seeks a declaration that UNM’s policies and procedures violate Title VI, a permanent injunction barring the use of race in admissions, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Universities must provide equal treatment in public higher education and comply with SFFA’s mandate that admissions be race-neutral and grounded in individual merit.

This is not the first time the Liberty Justice Center has called on medical schools to uphold their legal obligation to end race-based admissions policies. In July of 2023, the organization sent a letter to over one-hundred-and-fifty medical schools, insisting they comply with the Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard and the University of North Carolina or face legal repercussions. This case is just one of many instances where the Liberty Justice Center has continued to hold institutions and government organizations accountable to Supreme Court decisions.

The Liberty Justice Center’s filing in Jakiche v. Board of Regents of the University of New Mexico is available here.

media requests

To schedule an interview about this case, please contact us.

Case Details

CASE NAME

Jakiche v. Board of Regents of the University of New Mexico

Filed

October 28, 2025

Court

United States District Court for the District of New Mexico

Status

Pending

Liberty Justice Center Attorneys

Reilly Stephens

Reilly Stephens

Reilly Stephens is a Senior Counsel at Liberty Justice Center, where he assists in cases to protect the rights to free speech, economic liberty, private property, and other Constitutional rights in courts across the country.

James McQuaid

James McQuaid

James McQuaid is a staff attorney at Liberty Justice Center where he assists in cases to protect the rights to free speech, economic liberty, private property, and other Constitutional rights in courts across the country.