Tang v. The Regents of the University of California

Background

Weijing Tang sued the Regents of the University of California and various University of California, Berkeley employees. The complaint asserted claims for national-origin discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, retaliation under Title IX, violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due-process clause, breach of contract, and national-origin discrimination under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Tang first sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent her dismissal from the Molecular and Cell Biology program and to obtain extensions to find a laboratory placement. She withdrew that motion. After her counsel withdrew because of a conflict, Tang stated that she would proceed without a lawyer and filed a renewed motion on September 30, 2025. She sought to stop her dismissal, reinstate her, and obtain additional relief involving policies, educational records, and pay or reimbursement.

Tang’s dismissal became final on September 29, 2025, according to the motion and supporting materials. At a status conference, the Regents agreed to delay enforcing or giving effect to the dismissal while the motion was briefed. The order states that the dismissal had not yet been processed by the Registrar’s office. Only the Regents had been served, so the court analyzed the requested relief against that defendant.

Legal standard

A temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction are extraordinary forms of emergency relief. The court applied the requirements that the plaintiff show likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, a favorable balance of hardships, and consistency with the public interest. Under the Ninth Circuit’s alternative balancing approach, serious questions on the merits and a sharply favorable balance of hardships may sometimes suffice, but the plaintiff must still show likely irreparable harm and that the public interest favors relief.

Analysis

The court found that Tang had shown likely irreparable harm from losing her place in the program. The record indicated that she was an international student with an F-visa and could lose her visa status and become subject to removal, or could be forced to transfer from the doctoral program. But the court found that Tang had not shown that the additional relief she requested was necessary to avoid irreparable harm, so it did not analyze the likelihood of success on claims directed only at that additional relief.

For the requested relief concerning her dismissal and reinstatement, the court found no serious question going to the merits of the claims.

Title VI claim

The court concluded that Tang’s national-origin discrimination claim under Title VI appeared barred by judicial exhaustion and the Younger abstention doctrine. Judicial exhaustion generally requires a person to challenge the result of a qualifying university administrative proceeding through the available state-court review process before bringing the challenge in federal court. The court found that Tang had participated in a formal university appeal process involving hearings, evidence, and allegations of national-origin discrimination. It concluded that she could raise alleged procedural defects through a California state-court petition for review.

The court also found that Younger abstention appeared to apply. That doctrine generally requires a federal court to refrain from interfering with an ongoing state-related proceeding when important state interests are involved, the state process provides an adequate opportunity to raise the claims, and the requested federal relief would interfere with that proceeding. The court determined that the university’s educational mission was an important state interest, that state-court review was available, and that Tang’s requested injunction would interfere with the proceeding leading to her dismissal.

Title IX claim

The court found that Tang had not raised a serious question on her retaliation claim under Title IX. Such a claim requires a connection between the retaliation and a complaint about sex discrimination. Tang described comments by a supervisor suggesting that her computer-science background made her lack sufficient biological knowledge, and she said she reported those comments. But the court found that she did not state that the comments related to her sex and did not describe other conduct amounting to sex discrimination or sexual harassment.

Due process, contract, and Unruh Act claims

The court found that Tang had not raised a serious question on her due-process, breach-of-contract, or Unruh Civil Rights Act claims because the Regents appeared protected by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity generally limits federal lawsuits seeking damages, declarations, or injunctions against a state and entities treated as part of the state. The court treated the Regents as an instrumentality of California and found that Tang had not identified a basis showing that the Regents had waived that immunity for these claims.

Disposition

The court denied Tang’s renewed motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The order did not enter a final judgment on the complaint’s claims.