Judge dismisses Justice Department suit for Harvard admissions records, finding pre-suit steps not shown

U.S. District Judge Myong J. Joun of the District of Massachusetts on Monday, Nov. 2, dismissed the federal government’s lawsuit seeking Harvard admissions records, granting Harvard’s motion without prejudice in United States v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, No. 1:26-cv-10844.¹ A one-page order issued the same day dismissed the case.²

Joun described his question as limited: whether the government had shown enough, at the pleading stage, that it met the requirements for going to court. He wrote that federal law requires the Justice Department to tell a funding recipient about its failure to comply and the action to be taken, before acting. The complaint does not allege the department told Harvard that litigation would follow, nor the specific failure, he wrote, and that gap is “dispositive at this stage.”¹

Joun wrote that “a deadline and a threat to sue, standing alone, do not necessarily demonstrate compliance” with the voluntary-compliance process. He also wrote the government “has substantial arguments” that the department pursued voluntary cooperation, and that an official’s signature on the complaint does not by itself settle when the required determination was made.¹

The Education Department’s review was weighed separately. Its rule, Joun wrote, pairs a 10-day wait after notice with more efforts to persuade the recipient, and the government had not adequately shown those steps were completed before the referral to the Justice Department. He also dismissed the breach-of-contract count, finding it rested on the same access duty, without prejudice to “a properly supported contractual theory.”¹

Refiling

Joun wrote that the defect “may be cured” by more administrative steps or a better-supported pleading, and that his ruling does not stop the Education Department from proceeding once it completes the steps. He denied as moot Harvard’s alternative request for a stay pending Massachusetts v. Department of Education, No. 26-cv-11229.¹ Politico reported that the government could file a similar suit again.³

The suit

The Justice Department sued Feb. 13 and filed an amended complaint May 4 that also covered the Education Department’s review.⁴⁵ The amended complaint says the suit is “solely to compel” documents on any consideration of race in admissions and that it “does not accuse Harvard of any discriminatory conduct.” It sought an injunction requiring access to the records, including anonymized, applicant-level data.⁵

What each side said

The government’s June brief said, “This lawsuit is about access to data,” that each department “followed the proper procedures,” and that nearly all schools under investigation had turned over admissions data or promised to. “Harvard refused, so Harvard got sued. That is not retaliation,” it said.⁶ In the February announcement, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon said, “If Harvard has stopped discriminating, it should happily share the data necessary to prove it.”⁷

Harvard’s June memorandum called the suit part of an “ongoing campaign against Harvard” and said the procedural requirements “are not technicalities.” It described the demand as “sensitive, identifiable records on hundreds of thousands of applicants” and said it had already produced “thousands of pages of documents.”⁸ Its reply called the reviews part of an “unconstitutional campaign of retaliation.”⁹

Justice Department, Education Department and Harvard spokespeople did not immediately respond to Politico’s requests for comment.³

What the records do not show

• The ruling leaves open whether Harvard discriminated, whether the agencies can legally ask for a properly scoped set of applicant-level data, and whether Harvard could eventually have to turn it over.¹
• Joun left open whether the requests reach too far and whether the government had an improper or retaliatory purpose. He wrote that he made no finding, as historical fact, that the assistant attorney general never made the required determination.¹
• The docket, as last updated on CourtListener on Nov. 2, shows no appeal or new complaint. The records do not say whether the government will do either.⁴
• SignalData did not read the Sept. 24 hearing transcript, which is restricted until Dec. 31.⁴