A federal judge in Massachusetts on November 2 granted Harvard University’s motion to dismiss a Trump administration lawsuit seeking admissions records. The dismissal was without prejudice, meaning the government may be able to bring another case after addressing the deficiencies identified by the court. The dispute arose from federal investigations into whether Harvard complied with civil-rights requirements in its admissions process. Judge Myong J. Joun emphasized that the decision addressed the government’s pre-enforcement procedures, not whether Harvard had discriminated against applicants.
The Trump administration sued Harvard in February 2026, alleging that the university had not adequately cooperated with federal reviews of its admissions practices. The government sought applicant-level admissions information, including individual application materials, to examine whether race continued to play a role in admissions decisions. The investigation followed the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision restricting the use of race-conscious admissions. The government argued that Harvard had delayed or withheld information. Harvard countered that the demands were too broad and said it had complied with applicable law.
In a memorandum of decision, Joun considered the Justice Department’s and the Education Department’s procedures separately. The court concluded that the complaint did not adequately establish that the Justice Department had completed the required pre-enforcement determination and notice steps. It also found that the Education Department had not sufficiently shown that it took the additional steps to encourage voluntary compliance required by its regulations before referring the matter for judicial enforcement. The judge wrote that a deadline and a threat to sue, standing alone, do not necessarily demonstrate compliance with the required process.
The judge expressly stated that the decision does not determine whether Harvard discriminated, whether the agencies may lawfully seek appropriately defined applicant-level data, or whether Harvard may ultimately be required to provide such information. The ruling also does not resolve Harvard’s allegation that the government acted with an improper or retaliatory purpose. The dismissal was without prejudice, leaving the administration free to pursue another action if it can satisfy the applicable procedural requirements and support its claims.
The Associated Press reported that Harvard challenged the government’s demands and argued that the agencies had not followed the required process. The dismissal means the government did not obtain the judicial enforcement it sought through the current complaint. It does not establish a permanent exemption for Harvard from every lawful request for admissions information. A new case, supported by a different administrative record, could be considered on its own merits. For now, the case has ended on a procedural basis while the underlying dispute over admissions practices remains unresolved.