Dive Brief:
- The University of Iowa cannot redirect privately donated scholarship funds intended for Black students studying science, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled on Friday.
- Under the university's plan — which the public flagship tied to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2023 ruling against race-conscious admissions — eligibility for the scholarship would have been changed to cover first-generation students studying science.
- But the state's high court upheld a previous ruling blocking the university's plan and turned it over to the lower court to decide if and how the scholarship will be altered. The University of Iowa did not immediately respond to questions on Monday.
Dive Insight:
Ezra Totton, a Black chemistry professor, left a scholarship bequest to the institution upon his death in 1996 "out of gratitude to the University of Iowa for educating him in its graduate chemistry program during the Jim Crow era," according to court documents.
Totton, for whom the scholarship was named, said the aid should go to "Black students majoring in the physical sciences, preferably chemistry." He left a similar scholarship bequest to the University of Wisconsin for “Black students majoring in Biochemistry.”
In January 2025, the university sought permission to modify the terms of the scholarship. It said in court documents that the U.S. Supreme Court's ban on race-conscious admissions "raised serious doubts about its ability to administer the scholarship going forward."
The high court's landmark ruling did not address scholarships or grants. But some state and university leaders quickly interpreted it as also barring aid awarded on a race-conscious basis. And the second Trump administration has sought to apply the decision to everything from housing to graduation ceremonies.
An Iowa district court last year denied the university's request and found that neither the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling nor any other legal authority conclusively showed it would be illegal to continue the scholarship.
The University of Iowa appealed that decision, and shortly thereafter the American Civil Liberties Union and NAACP, along with local chapters of both organizations, filed an amicus brief in January.
"In light of the current threats it cites, the University no longer wants to administer the funds in accord with Dr. Totton’s specific intent," the groups said, arguing against the University of Iowa's assertion that it is required to change the scholarship's eligibility.
If the university cannot adhere to the terms of Totton's gift, the groups said the court should either redirect "the funds to one or more of the alternative charitable institutions named by Dr. Totton in his will" or return the money to his family "for them to be able to further distribute it in service of Dr. Totton’s wishes."
Iowa's attorney general and solicitor general, however, argued that offering the scholarship as intended leaves the University of Iowa open to increasing legal risk and said state law allows it "to modify a charitable fund when a restriction becomes unlawful, impracticable, or impossible to fulfill."
"The Totton Scholarship’s race-based eligibility is unconstitutional and thus impracticable to administer, given the ongoing risk of litigation and federal enforcement action," they told the court in March.
The state Supreme Court on Friday found that it is "at least 'impracticable' to administer the scholarship as is," but it ruled against the university's proposed change.
The case now returns to the district court to decide if and how the scholarship's terms may change. Under guidance from the state high court, that process must take Totton's will into account and include "an advocate for the donor’s intent."
Arthur Totten, Totton's nephew, said in a statement Friday that changing the scholarship to support first-generation students would not be consistent with his uncle's intent.
"His goal, informed by his own life experiences of challenging and overcoming barriers for Black people to advance in higher education and of Black individuals supporting each other in this endeavor, was to continue to help black students do the same," Totten said.
Rita Bettis Austen, legal director for ACLU of Iowa, praised the Iowa Supreme Court's decision to uphold the lower court's ruling.
“The law protects the wishes of donors by requiring that modifications be made to protect them as best as possible and be made by the courts, not by the charity seeking to modify them,” she said.
She also noted that Black students and first-generation students are not interchangeable groups.
"While there is some overlap between the two student groups, these are distinct populations," Bettis Austen said.
At the University of Iowa, less than 3% of college students are Black, while 19% are first generation, she said. Black students also "qualify for financial aid more" and carry larger student loan debt than first-generation students do, while earning less a decade after graduating, she added.
"Without question, repurposing Dr. Totton’s gift to students who were the first person in their family to attend college would have had the effect of significantly diluting its potential benefit to Black students," Bettis Austen said.
