Judge Throws Out Federal Demand for Harvard Admissions Records

Federal jurist Myong Joun threw out the Justice Department’s case seeking records from Harvard as part of an investigation into whether the university still considers race in admissions. The administration filed the lawsuit in February, alleging Harvard had not provided documents needed for the review, including individual application materials.

The government sought five years of admissions information for applicants to Harvard’s undergraduate, medical and law schools. Its requests included grades, test scores, essays, extracurricular activities, admissions results, and applicants’ race and ethnicity. Officials said the records would help determine whether the university had continued race-conscious admissions after the Supreme Court barred affirmative action in 2023.

Joun found that the government had not completed steps required before seeking a court order. The agency was required to notify Harvard of noncompliance and establish that voluntary cooperation could not be secured. The dismissal was without prejudice, allowing the administration to bring the case again.

The judge stressed that the decision addressed only the government’s process. It did not decide whether Harvard discriminated, whether officials could legally seek properly limited applicant-level records, or whether Harvard might eventually have to provide them.

Harvard has argued that the demands were excessive and characterized the lawsuit as retaliation in a wider dispute with the administration. The university has maintained that its admissions practices comply with federal law. The ruling adds to other court setbacks for the administration in its conflict with Harvard, including litigation over funding and an antisemitism-related case.

Judge Rejects Trump Administration’s Latest Push Against Harvard

The Trump administration’s attempt to compel Harvard to hand over sensitive admissions files has been turned back by a federal judge, another setback in its campaign against the university. Judge Myong Joun found that the government had not taken required steps to secure voluntary compliance before asking a court to intervene.

The Justice Department sought five years of records on applicants to Harvard’s undergraduate, medical and law schools, including essays, grades, test scores, activities, outcomes and racial information. Officials said the material was needed to investigate whether Harvard continued considering race after the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision against affirmative action in admissions.

The ruling does not resolve whether Harvard discriminated or whether properly defined applicant data can lawfully be demanded. Nor does it prevent the administration from filing again: the dismissal was without prejudice. The dispute over the records remains open, even as the government’s case failed on its required procedures.

Harvard has said the lawsuit was part of a broader effort to pressure it into adopting the administration’s preferred policies, and that its admissions process follows federal law. The administration has also faced court defeats in disputes with Harvard over funding and allegations concerning antisemitism. The ruling underscores the stakes when federal power is used to force a university to turn over highly personal student application material.

Harvard Wins a Procedural Ruling, Not a Decision on Admissions

The judge’s ruling blocks the administration’s current lawsuit, but it does not clear Harvard of discrimination or settle whether the government can demand admissions records. Judge Myong Joun dismissed the case because the Justice Department had not completed required steps to seek voluntary compliance before going to court.

The administration says it needs five years of records from Harvard’s undergraduate, medical and law admissions processes to determine whether the university continued considering race after the Supreme Court barred affirmative action in 2023. The requested materials included essays, grades, test scores, extracurricular activities, outcomes and race and ethnicity information.

Joun made clear that the decision was limited to whether the government met the prerequisites for judicial enforcement. The dismissal was without prejudice, so the administration can refile. The question of whether Harvard must provide appropriately defined applicant-level information remains unsettled.

Harvard has opposed the demands as excessive and portrayed the case as retaliation, while maintaining that its admissions practices comply with federal law. The procedural ruling does not answer the central question the investigation was meant to examine. The administration can still pursue the records through a properly handled case, while Harvard continues to contest its demands.