Home · Politics · Nov 3 archive
Judge Dismisses Trump DOJ's Harvard Admissions Lawsuit
· Confirmed
In Short: A federal judge dismissed the Trump administration's lawsuit seeking Harvard admissions records, citing procedural deficiencies while leaving the door open for another case.
In a 10-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Myong Joun found the government was too quick to sue without first taking all legally required steps to secure the university's voluntary compliance with its demands for admissions data.
Harvard argued it had been responsive to the DOJ’s demands but was sued nonetheless because of its refusal to cede to the administration on issues like antisemitism.
The government had sought years of applicant-level admissions data to determine whether Harvard considers race in its student admissions process, which would run afoul of the administration’s stance on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.
Judge Joun dismissed the complaint without prejudice, opening the door for the government to sue again if it can prove Harvard will not comply voluntarily with its demands.
Harvard has maintained it provided the government with more than 2,000 pages of documents without divulging individualized records, which it says are privileged.
DOE spokesperson Ellen Keast said Harvard has a “well-documented” history of discrimination, citing a 2023 Supreme Court ruling that gutted affirmative action.
The ruling does not determine whether Harvard has discriminated, whether the agencies may lawfully seek appropriately defined applicant-level data, or whether Harvard may ultimately be required to provide such data.
Harvard has already secured rulings from other judges rejecting the administration's efforts to terminate over $2 billion in grants, block the school from hosting international students, and sue it for allegedly failing to protect Jewish and Israeli students from harassment.
What this adds
The dismissal marks a win for Harvard in a prolonged dispute over whether the University must hand over applicant-level admissions data to prove it is complying with the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision barring race-conscious admissions.
The judge acknowledged that federal officials had made repeated requests for records and warned Harvard of potential enforcement action, but found that a deadline and a threat to sue standing alone do not necessarily demonstrate compliance with the Justice Department's process for working with schools over information demands.
Background
U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson issued a temporary restraining order Friday, halting the Trump administration's threats to election workers over suspected noncitizen ballots.
A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order Friday, halting the Trump administration's threats to election workers over suspected noncitizen ballots.
What's confirmed
- But in a 10-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Myong Joun found the government was too quick to sue.
- In a statement to Courthouse News, DOE spokesperson Ellen Keast said Harvard has a “well-documented” history of discrimination, citing a 2023 Supreme Court ruling that gutted affirmative action.
- 13, the government claimed Harvard “is not complying with a federal investigation” into whether its admissions process is discriminatory.
- In September 2025, a federal judge found the administration’s $2.6 billion cuts to Harvard’s research funding unlawfully retaliatory.
- “The ruling does not determine whether Harvard has discriminated, whether the agencies may lawfully seek appropriately defined applicant-level data or whether Harvard may ultimately be required to provide such data,” he clarified.
- Harvard argued it was responsive to the DOJ’s demands but was sued nonetheless because of its refusal to cede to the administration on issues like antisemitism.
- He dismissed the complaint without prejudice, opening the door for the government to sue again if it can truly prove Harvard will not comply voluntarily with its demands.
- “The government … has not supplied a sufficient basis for the judicial relief currently sought,” the judge ruled.
- “Harvard has failed to disclose the data we need to ensure that its admissions are free of discrimination — we will continue fighting to put merit over DEI across America,” then-Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a February statement announcing the suit.
- A federal judge dismissed the Trump administration's lawsuit seeking Harvard admissions records, citing procedural deficiencies while leaving open the possibility of another case.
- "Nothing in this decision converts the Government's request for information into an accusation of present discrimination or resolves Harvard's underlying Title VI compliance," the judge wrote.
- A federal judge on Monday dismissed a lawsuit by President Donald Trump's administration seeking to force Harvard University to turn over records for an investigation into whether it continues to consider race in its student admissions process.
What's still developing
- U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs, a Barack Obama appointee in Massachusetts, called the funding freeze an “ideologically motivated assault” on one of the nation’s top colleges and concluded the administration was doing the same to other prestigious institutions around the country.
- “President Trump has publicly expressed his beliefs that ‘Harvard has lost its way,’ that it ‘has been hiring almost all woke, radical left, idiots and birdbrains’ and that ‘Harvard is a JOKE.’ The rest of the executive branch has followed the president’s lead,” Harvard claims in the filing.
- They said the lawsuit was filed after Trump announced in early February that he was ending settlement talks and wanted $1 billion in damages from Harvard, which he said had "been, for a long time, behaving very badly."
- A federal judge just shut down the Trump administration's bid to force Harvard to hand over detailed admissions data, but he left the door open for a do-over.
- Both departments have started numerous investigations into whether colleges continue to consider race in admissions.
- The Justice Department sought admissions documents including application essays written by individual students.
- “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for a majority of the Supreme Court in last summer’s Students for Fair Admissions opinions, which held that affirmative action policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina violated the Constitution.
- Three years ago, the court ruled that Harvard and other universities may not discriminate on whom they admit based on the race of their applicants.
- Joun’s findings only address the limited question of whether the DOJ — and the Department of Education — can currently ask the court to compel Harvard into turning over the data the agencies seek.
- The Justice Department filed its lawsuit in February, alleging that Harvard had failed to cooperate with a federal civil rights review examining whether the university's admissions practices comply with the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling limiting the use of race in college admissions.
- Harvard's attorneys argued that the lawsuit was part of a broader retaliatory campaign by the Trump administration after the university resisted demands for changes to its governance and academic policies.
- Joun 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.
Sources
- Courthouse Newslink
- Fox Newslink
- Justthenewslink
- Law360link
- New Hampshire Union Leaderlink
- NewsCordlink
- Newserlink
- Political Wirelink
- The Harvard Crimsonlink
- Warpbeatlink
- upilink
- Pacificlegallink
- Los Angeles Timeslink
- WarpBeat — background on Federal Judge Halts Trump DOJ Threats to Election Workers link
- WarpBeat — background on Federal Judge Halts Trump DOJ's Threats to Election Workers link
- CNN — video link