A federal judge in Boston on Monday dismissed the Trump administration’s lawsuit seeking Harvard University’s applicant-level admissions records, ruling that the government skipped required procedural steps before suing, according to multiple news reports. The dismissal was without prejudice, meaning the Justice Department can refile, according to The Harvard Crimson.
U.S. District Judge Myong Joun, an appointee of President Joe Biden, agreed with Harvard that the Justice Department sued without taking all legally required steps aimed at securing the university’s voluntary compliance, CNBC reported. Courthouse News Service reported that the judge found the government had not yet shown a sufficient basis for the court to step in.
A federal judge dismissed the Trump administration's lawsuit seeking to force Harvard University to turn over records for an investigation into whether it continues to consider race in its student admissions process.https://t.co/mClkrK1MDe
— CNN (@CNN) November 2, 2026
Education Department fires back
The Education Department blasted the ruling. Department spokesperson Ellen Keast told Courthouse News that Harvard refused when the government asked for data to see whether the school had changed its ways, and that a Democrat-appointed judge is now shielding Harvard from accountability. Keast also said students should be judged on their merit and accomplishments rather than the color of their skin, according to the outlet.
What the Justice Department wanted
The Justice Department sued Harvard in February, arguing that the university had “thwarted” and “slow-walked” a federal civil rights review by missing deadlines on multiple records requests, according to The Harvard Crimson. The department sought the records to check whether Harvard is complying with the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision barring race-conscious admissions, the Crimson reported. The administration said it needed years of applicant-level data to determine whether race remains a factor in Harvard’s decisions, CNBC reported.
Harvard has said it provided the government with more than 2,000 pages of documents but would not turn over individualized applicant records, which it calls privileged, according to the Crimson. The university’s lawyers also argued that the government abandoned negotiations early as part of a retaliatory campaign, the Crimson reported.
A procedural ruling, not a verdict
Joun’s 10-page opinion found that the government’s complaint did not allege that the Justice Department told Harvard it would sue if the university did not comply, or that it communicated the “specific failure identified,” according to the Crimson. “A deadline and a threat to sue, standing alone, do not necessarily demonstrate compliance with the regulatory voluntary-compliance process where the agency seeks to enforce disputed demands for extensive information,” Joun wrote, according to the Crimson.
The judge also found that the Education Department did not follow the proper steps before joining the case in May, the Crimson reported.
Critically, the ruling did not decide whether Harvard discriminates in admissions or whether the government is entitled to the data. “Those questions remain open,” Joun wrote, according to the Crimson. “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.”
What comes next
Because the case was dismissed without prejudice, the administration can fix the procedural issues and bring a new suit, the Crimson reported. Then and only then, the judge said, can the government ask for the court’s intervention, Courthouse News reported.
The ruling comes less than a week after Harvard released Class of 2030 demographic data showing the share of Black students fell to 9.3 percent while the share of Asian American students rose to 43.2 percent, according to the Crimson. For supporters of the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision, the open question remains the one the judge declined to answer: whether Harvard is fully following the law, and whether the public will ever see the records that would show it.
Sources
- The Harvard Crimson
- CNBC
- Courthouse News Service
- CNN on X
Sources cited
Sources
- Original post: CNN (@CNN) on X, Nov 2, 2026
Posts on X are shown as published by their authors; claims in them are attributed, not independently confirmed unless the article says so. If an embedded post does not load, these links open the originals.