US Justice Department sues Harvard over access to race data in admissions

The United States Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit against Harvard University, accusing the institution of refusing to provide admissions records sought as part of a federal review into whether it has complied with the Supreme Court’s ban on affirmative action.

In a complaint filed in federal court in Massachusetts on Friday, the Justice Department said Harvard had “thwarted” efforts to investigate potential discrimination and asked a judge to compel the university to turn over the requested records.

What the government is seeking

According to the lawsuit, the Justice Department opened a compliance review into Harvard’s admissions practices last April, the same day the White House issued a set of demands aligned with President Donald Trump’s policy priorities.

The department directed Harvard to provide five years of admissions data covering undergraduate applicants as well as applicants to its medical and law schools. The requested material includes grades, standardised test scores, essays, extracurricular activities and admissions decisions, along with applicants’ race and ethnicity. The agency set an April 25, 2025 deadline. The lawsuit states that Harvard has not provided the data.

Justice Department officials say the information is necessary to determine whether Harvard has continued to consider race in admissions decisions despite the 2023 Supreme Court ruling that barred affirmative action in college admissions. The decision followed cases involving Harvard and the University of North Carolina.

Civil rights enforcement or retaliation

Harmeet Dhillon, who leads the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department, described Harvard’s refusal as a warning sign. “If Harvard has stopped discriminating, it should happily share the data necessary to prove it,” Dhillon said in a statement.

Harvard has said it is complying with the Supreme Court’s decision and responding to federal requests. In a statement, the university said, “The University will continue to defend itself against these retaliatory actions which have been initiated simply because Harvard refused to surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights in response to unlawful government overreach.”

The administration has argued that some colleges continue to consider race in admissions in ways that disadvantage white and Asian American students. Harvard has maintained that it is facing unconstitutional retaliation for resisting what it calls ideological demands from the administration.

A broader standoff

The lawsuit marks the latest phase in an extended dispute between the Trump administration and Harvard. The university has faced billions of dollars in federal funding cuts and other sanctions after rejecting a list of administration demands last year.

Trump officials have said their actions are tied in part to allegations of anti Jewish bias on campus. Harvard officials have rejected that characterisation and say the measures are punitive.

The administration is also appealing two rulings in which judges sided with Harvard in separate lawsuits. At the same time, the White House has been pressing universities across the United States to provide similar admissions data to assess compliance with the Supreme Court ruling. The United States Department of Education is expected to collect more detailed admissions information after Trump signed an executive action suggesting some institutions were ignoring the court’s decision.

Last summer, Trump indicated that a deal to restore Harvard’s federal funding was close. The agreement did not materialise. This month, Trump said Harvard would have to pay one billion dollars as part of any settlement, doubling an earlier demand.

What comes next

The court will now determine whether Harvard must produce the requested records. Beyond the immediate legal question lies a broader issue: how aggressively the federal government will police post affirmative action admissions practices, and how universities balance compliance with institutional autonomy.

Both sides have framed the dispute as a defence of civil rights. The court’s decision will shape how that claim is interpreted in practice.
Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!