A federal judge dismissed the Trump administration's lawsuit against Harvard University on Monday, determining that the government had not properly established the necessary procedural steps before seeking the school's admissions records. The suit had aimed to compel the Ivy League institution to turn over data as part of an investigation into whether its admissions process continues to consider race.
U.S. District Judge Myong Joun issued the ruling, stating that the Department of Justice did not adequately demonstrate that it had followed required procedures prior to filing the suit to obtain applicant-level data. The decision was issued without prejudice, which means the administration retains the option to file a new lawsuit if it corrects the specific procedural deficiencies identified by the court.
In his ten-page decision, Joun noted that the government might be able to identify a qualifying determination or fix the procedural issues. However, he wrote that the administration has not yet supplied a sufficient basis for the specific judicial relief it is currently seeking.
The Justice Department originally filed the lawsuit in February, claiming that Harvard failed to cooperate with a federal civil rights review. The review was examining whether the university's admissions practices complied with the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling, which limited the use of race in college admissions. The department alleged that Harvard repeatedly delayed providing requested documents and failed to submit individualized admissions records despite multiple requests and extended deadlines.
When the lawsuit was first announced in February, then-Attorney General Pam Bondi accused Harvard of withholding information necessary for the government's review. She stated at the time that the university had failed to disclose the data needed to ensure its admissions were free of discrimination.
Judge Joun acknowledged that federal officials had made repeated requests for records and had warned Harvard of potential enforcement action. Nevertheless, he found that the government's court filings did not adequately show that officials had followed the required procedures before seeking judicial intervention. Specifically, the judge pointed out that the complaint did not allege that officials notified Harvard of their intent to sue if the university failed to comply, nor did it adequately identify the specific compliance failure at issue.
The judge also found that the Department of Education had not sufficiently demonstrated that it followed its own required procedures before referring its separate admissions investigation for judicial enforcement. This finding added another layer of procedural scrutiny to the case.
Harvard's attorneys argued that the lawsuit was part of a broader retaliatory campaign by the Trump administration. They claimed the university faced legal pressure after resisting demands for changes to its governance and academic policies. The judge, however, did not rule on these retaliation claims, emphasizing that his decision addressed procedural deficiencies rather than whether the university had violated federal civil rights law.
Joun clarified that the ruling did not convert the government's request for information into an accusation of present discrimination. He wrote that the decision did not resolve Harvard's underlying compliance with Title VI. The Justice Department, the Department of Education, and Harvard University were contacted for comment regarding the ruling.
