A federal judge in Boston dismissed a lawsuit against Harvard University on Monday, ruling that the Justice Department had not met necessary procedural requirements before demanding the university release sensitive admissions records. The legal action stemmed from a federal investigation into whether the Ivy League institution had ceased using affirmative action in its admissions processes.
The Justice Department had accused Harvard of obstructing the investigation by refusing to comply with requests for specific data. The agency sought a court order compelling the university to turn over the records, arguing that Harvard’s actions had thwarted efforts to identify potential discrimination in admissions decisions.
U.S. District Judge Myong Joun concluded that the agency skipped a critical step in the enforcement framework. In his written decision, Joun noted that before taking enforcement action, the government must first advise the recipient of their failure to comply and determine that voluntary compliance is no longer possible. He stated that the Justice Department did not adequately establish that it had satisfied these prerequisites at the stage of the complaint.
Despite the dismissal, Judge Joun clarified that the ruling addresses a limited procedural question rather than the substantive merits of the case. He emphasized that the decision does not determine whether Harvard engaged in discrimination, nor does it settle whether the agencies can lawfully seek applicant-level data. The dispute over the specific data remains active, and the court left open the possibility that Harvard may ultimately be required to provide it.
Neither Harvard University nor the Department of Justice issued a statement in response to the ruling. The decision marks another significant setback for the Trump administration in its ongoing legal battles with the university. The administration has previously faced defeats in federal courts regarding billions of dollars in funding cuts and a separate lawsuit accusing the university of antisemitism on campus.
The core of the current disagreement centers on a compliance review launched by the Justice Department in 2025. The agency demanded five years of admissions data for applicants to Harvard’s undergraduate, medical, and law schools. This request included detailed information such as grades, standardized test scores, personal essays, extracurricular activities, and final admissions outcomes, alongside data on applicants’ race and ethnicity.
Officials in the Justice Department stated that this data is essential for determining if Harvard continues to consider race in its admissions decisions. This scrutiny follows the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling, which barred affirmative action in college admissions after legal challenges were filed against both Harvard and the University of North Carolina.
The conflict with Harvard is part of a broader campaign by the current administration targeting higher education institutions accused of using race in admissions. Trump officials have framed their actions as a response to allegations of anti-Jewish bias at the university. Conversely, Harvard officials have described the federal pressure as unconstitutional retaliation for the university’s refusal to adopt the administration’s ideological positions.
The administration has recently expanded its focus to other prestigious institutions. In October, the Justice Department announced that the law school at the University of California, Los Angeles, had illegally considered race in admissions. This finding followed a similar determination regarding UCLA’s medical school. The department has also accused the UC Berkeley Law School and the medical school at the University of California, San Diego, of illegally discriminating against white and Asian applicants.
