A U.S. District Court judge dismissed a Trump administration lawsuit brought against Harvard for allegedly withholding individual-level admissions data. Judge Myoung J. Joun ruled on November 2 that the government had failed to follow the procedures stipulated by law before suing the University. The dismissal was made without prejudice, which means the government can correct the procedural defects or amend its lawsuit and bring the case again.
The litigation began on February 13 when the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a complaint seeking “applicant-level” admissions data from Harvard College, Harvard Medical School, and Harvard Law School, a request that some legal observers have speculated might violate student privacy laws. The government said that it needed “applicant-level data to determine whether Harvard is complying with Title VI and the Supreme Court’s ruling” in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, the 2023 Supreme Court case that banned the consideration of race in admissions decisions.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance. When the DOJ first filed its complaint, Harvard issued a statement that it had been “responding to the government’s inquiries in good faith” and continued to “be willing to engage with the government according to the process required by law.”
The University’s formal response to the federal government’s lawsuit, filed April 14, argued that the case was legally deficient on regulatory, procedural, and constitutional grounds.
Joun’s decision did not address the constitutionality of the government’s case, nor the privacy considerations surrounding student data. Instead, he found procedural defects. Title VI dictates that the DOJ cannot take legal action to force compliance until three prerequisites are met: a determination that voluntary compliance cannot be achieved; direct approval by the Attorney General; and formal notification of both the specific failure to comply and the ensuing action that will follow—such as bringing a lawsuit.
“For example,” Joun wrote, “the complaint does not allege that DOJ informed Harvard of the action it would take—namely, litigation—should Harvard fail to comply, nor does the complaint allege the specific failure identified.”
Joun was careful to establish the limits of his decision. “Because I resolve this action on a threshold procedural ground,” he wrote, “I do not decide whether the [government’s] information requests are overbroad or insufficiently relevant, whether the Government acted for an improper or retaliatory purpose [as Harvard has argued], or whether a stay would otherwise be appropriate” pending a separate federal lawsuit, filed in March by Massachusetts and 16 other states (along with the District of Columbia), that challenges the federal government’s efforts to compel the release of private student records.
“Those questions,” Joun wrote in his memorandum of decision, “remain open.” A DOJ spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed that the government will refile an amended complaint.
