Trump Administration’s Harvard Admissions Lawsuit Dismissed, Why Judge Joun Rejected the Case and What Happens Next

A federal judge in Boston has dismissed the Trump administration’s lawsuit seeking detailed applicant records from Harvard University. On November 2, 2026, U.S. District Judge Myong J. Joun of the District of Massachusetts ruled that the government had not adequately shown it completed the legally required voluntary-compliance steps before taking Harvard to court.

The dismissal was without prejudice, so the government can try to fix the problems and come back. The ruling does not decide whether Harvard discriminated, and it does not decide whether Harvard must eventually hand over the records.

In the court’s own words, the ruling “does not determine whether Harvard has discriminated, whether the agencies may lawfully seek appropriately defined applicant-level data, or whether Harvard may ultimately be required to provide such data.”

Quick Facts: United States v. President and Fellows of Harvard College

Detail	Information
Case name	United States v. President and Fellows of Harvard College
Case number	1:26-cv-10844-MJJ
Court	U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Judge	Myong J. Joun
Plaintiff	United States of America (Department of Justice, with the Department of Education’s matter added)
Defendant	President and Fellows of Harvard College
Original complaint filed	February 13, 2026
Amended complaint	May 4, 2026
Motion to dismiss hearing	September 24, 2026
Dismissal date	November 2, 2026
Main federal law	Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d
Additional claim	Breach of contract
Result	Harvard’s motion to dismiss granted
Type of dismissal	Without prejudice
Can the government try again?	Yes, if it satisfies the required procedures
Is Harvard required to produce the records now?	No, not under this ruling
Is this a class action?	No. The United States is the plaintiff

What Happened in the Harvard Admissions Lawsuit?

The Justice Department (DOJ) sued Harvard on February 13, 2026, accusing the university of “slow-walking” its response to requests for admissions information and refusing to provide applicant-level data. The government said it needed the data to determine whether Harvard still considered race in admissions after the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023).

The government sought years of records covering Harvard College, Harvard Law School and Harvard Medical School, including individual application essays and other materials tied to admissions decisions for thousands of applicants.

Harvard called the requests overly broad and unnecessary to confirm compliance. It said it was cooperating within appropriate limits while protecting applicant privacy and institutional processes.

On November 2, 2026, Judge Joun granted Harvard’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint. He focused on procedure, not on the underlying dispute, and the opinion was short (about ten pages). He found that the government had not adequately shown it completed the required steps before asking a court to enforce its demands.

As of now, Harvard is not required to produce the contested applicant records while the government decides its next move.

Why Did the Trump Administration Sue Harvard?

On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court decided Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which addressed race-conscious admissions at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. The Court held that Harvard’s program violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and that the University of North Carolina’s program violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

After that decision, universities could no longer give an admissions advantage because of an applicant’s race. The Court did say, however, that applicants may still discuss how race affected their lives, and schools may consider that discussion as part of the individual’s character and qualities. What they may not do is use race itself as a “plus factor,” or use essays as a back door to do the same thing.

The Trump administration argued that Harvard’s past practices justified a closer look at whether the university had truly stopped considering race. That compliance review led to the February 2026 lawsuit.

What Information Did the Justice Department Want From Harvard?

According to the government’s complaint, DOJ sent information requests beginning in April 2025, covering the previous five academic years. The requests were not limited to public statistics.

Harvard College: SAT and ACT scores, GPAs, extracurricular activities, application essays, admissions outcomes and race and ethnicity information, broken down by race and ethnicity.

Harvard Law School: LSAT scores, GPAs, extracurricular activities, essays, admissions decisions and race and ethnicity information.

Harvard Medical School: MCAT scores, academic performance, extracurricular activities, essays and admissions outcomes.

Policies and internal records: Admissions policies, documents explaining how applications are reviewed, and communications about race, ethnicity, diversity, equity and inclusion.

The government argued that aggregate numbers cannot show how applicants were actually evaluated. Knowing the percentage of students from each racial group does not reveal whether similarly qualified applicants were treated differently. Investigators wanted to compare qualifications with decisions.

Harvard said the demand reached sensitive personal information, including essays and life histories, beyond what was needed to confirm compliance.

What Were Harvard’s Arguments Against the Lawsuit?

Harvard did not argue that the government has no power to investigate. Its June 3, 2026 motion-to-dismiss memorandum made four main arguments.

1. Harvard had already changed its admissions policies. Harvard said it issued internal guidance telling admissions staff that applicants may not receive an advantage because of race, and that it changed how staff could access uncontextualized race and ethnicity data. It said it told the agencies about these changes.
2. The requests were too broad. Harvard pointed to the volume of applicants, the sensitivity of the information and the burden of producing essays and personal histories.
3. The agencies skipped required procedures. Harvard argued that agencies cannot set a deadline, threaten enforcement and go straight to court. This is the argument that won.
4. The investigation was retaliatory. Harvard argued that the probe was part of a wider campaign against it. The government disputed this. Judge Joun did not decide the retaliation question.

How Did the Harvard Admissions Case Develop? Timeline

Date	What happened
June 29, 2023	Supreme Court decides Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.
April 11, 2025	DOJ requests admissions information from Harvard College and Harvard Medical School.
April 18, 2025	DOJ sends a similar request to Harvard Law School.
May 2025	Harvard makes initial productions (May 16 and May 30, per the government’s complaint). Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights opens its own review.
September 8 and 12, 2025	DOJ sends further requests on medical-school and Harvard College admissions.
September 19, 2025	Education Department letter about Harvard’s failure to provide requested information.
October 10, 2025	Extended production deadline set by DOJ.
February 13, 2026	DOJ files its lawsuit.
March 23, 2026	Education Department letter identifying possible enforcement or referral.
April 24, 2026	Education Department refers its matter to DOJ.
May 4, 2026	Government files an amended complaint adding the Education Department’s investigation.
June 3, 2026	Harvard files its motion to dismiss.
June 17, 2026	Government files its opposition.
June 24, 2026	Harvard files its reply.
September 24, 2026	Judge Joun hears arguments.
November 2, 2026	Judge Joun grants the motion to dismiss without prejudice.

Why Did the Federal Judge Dismiss the Harvard Lawsuit?

The court did not hold that Harvard’s records are protected from federal review. It held that the government had not adequately shown it followed the pre-enforcement steps that Title VI and the agencies’ own regulations require. The court analyzed the Justice Department and the Education Department separately.

Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d and § 2000d-1

Title VI prohibits discrimination based on race, color or national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. Harvard receives federal funds and is covered.

Section 2000d-1 sets limits on enforcement. An agency must first advise the recipient of its failure to comply and determine that compliance cannot be secured voluntarily. Terminating funding, the most serious remedy, also requires an express finding on the record after an opportunity for a hearing, is limited to the particular program where noncompliance was found, and requires a written report to the relevant congressional committees, with a 30-day wait before the termination takes effect. These protections explain why courts take the procedural steps seriously.

The Justice Department’s rule: 28 C.F.R. § 42.108

Under 28 C.F.R. § 42.108(d), before DOJ pursues enforcement, the process includes:

• A determination by the responsible department official that voluntary compliance cannot be secured.
• Approval by the Attorney General.
• Notice to the recipient of the failure to comply and the action the government intends to take.

Judge Joun found the complaint did not adequately allege that DOJ told Harvard litigation was the action it would take if Harvard did not comply, and did not clearly identify the specific failure relied upon. He wrote that a simple deadline and a threat to sue were not enough.

He did not find that the required determination was never made. He found it was not adequately supported by the pleading and the materials the court could properly consider at this stage.

The Education Department’s rule: 34 C.F.R. § 100.8(d)

The Education Department’s regulation requires notice of the failure to comply and the action intended to secure compliance, plus efforts during the relevant ten-day period to persuade the recipient to comply. The government argued that more than ten days had passed between communications. The judge found that waiting is not enough, and that the government had not shown the Education Department completed the required steps. He also found procedural problems in how the Education Department’s probe was folded into the Justice Department’s case. One agency’s lawsuit did not excuse the other from following its own procedures.

The breach-of-contract claim

The government also argued that Harvard received a DOJ grant and agreed to follow Title VI, and breached that agreement by withholding records. The court found no separate contractual information obligation or independent enforcement route that would sidestep the Title VI procedures. Section 42.108 itself treats proceedings to enforce contractual undertakings as a form of Title VI enforcement. The contract claim was dismissed without prejudice to a properly supported contractual theory.

What Other Federal Rules Are Relevant to the Harvard Records Dispute?

The ruling turned on procedure, but several other laws frame the larger fight.

• Records access under Title VI regulations. The Title VI regulations require recipients to cooperate with compliance reviews and to permit access to their books, records and other sources of information. See 28 C.F.R. § 42.106 and 34 C.F.R. § 100.6(c). The government relies on these provisions, and the open question is how far they reach for applicant-level files.
• FERPA, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g and 34 C.F.R. Part 99. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act protects the privacy of student education records. It generally covers people who actually attended an institution, so records of applicants who never enrolled are generally treated differently from records of enrolled students. FERPA also contains exceptions that can allow disclosure in some circumstances. Harvard’s privacy objections and the government’s need for records both run through this framework.
• Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court decided a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. At that stage the judge asks whether the pleaded allegations and properly considered materials are enough to support relief.
• Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). Governs amending a complaint, which is the route the government has said it will take.
• 28 U.S.C. § 1345. Gives district courts jurisdiction over civil actions commenced by the United States.
• Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause. Governs public universities. It does not apply directly to Harvard, a private school, but the Supreme Court decided the Harvard and North Carolina cases together in 2023.

Did the Judge Rule That Harvard Did Nothing Wrong?

No. Harvard won this procedural round, but it was not cleared.

The court did not decide whether Harvard’s admissions process complies with Title VI, whether Harvard continued to use race, whether the agencies may lawfully demand appropriately defined applicant-level data, or whether Harvard may ultimately be required to provide it. It resolved only whether the government had adequately shown that it met the legal prerequisites to ask a court to enforce its demands.

What Does “Dismissed Without Prejudice” Mean?

A dismissal without prejudice does not bar the plaintiff from bringing the claim again once the problems are fixed. It differs from a dismissal with prejudice, which generally ends the claim for good. Judge Joun indicated the procedural deficiency could potentially be cured.

The government can complete missing administrative steps, give the required notices, document the determination that voluntary compliance cannot be secured, and file an amended or new complaint. A new filing would not automatically succeed.

Either side could also consider an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. When the United States is a party, the deadline to appeal a final judgment is generally 60 days (Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B)). Whether this particular order is immediately appealable depends on whether it is treated as a final decision, so watch the docket.

Will the Trump Administration Sue Harvard Again?

A Justice Department spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed (November 3, 2026) that the government intends to amend its complaint and continue to pursue the admissions information, saying the core issue remains Harvard’s alleged refusal to provide required information as a recipient of federal funds under Title VI. That is a stated plan, not proof that a new complaint has been filed.

To succeed, the government would likely need to:

1. Complete any missing administrative enforcement steps.
2. Document the determination that voluntary compliance cannot be secured.
3. Give Harvard notice of the alleged failure and the specific action it intends to take.
4. Make sure the Education Department separately satisfies § 100.8(d).
5. File a properly supported complaint.

How Does the Case Connect to the Supreme Court’s 2023 Affirmative-Action Decision?

The 2023 decision is the reason for the dispute. The Court held that Harvard’s program violated Title VI and that the University of North Carolina’s program violated the Equal Protection Clause.

The 2026 lawsuit is different. It does not challenge the admissions program again. It concerns the government’s attempt to obtain records to check compliance with the 2023 ruling. The November 2 dismissal does not reverse or weaken the Supreme Court’s decision. Harvard remains bound by it.

Why Is Harvard’s Class of 2030 Enrollment Data Relevant?

Harvard released new admissions and enrollment statistics on October 27, 2026. Its official statistics show the Class of 2030 has 1,648 enrolling students from 55,104 applicants. Among U.S. citizens and permanent residents who reported race or ethnicity:

• 9.3% identified as African American or Black.
• 43.2% identified as Asian American.
• 11.4% identified as Hispanic or Latino.
• Approximately 2% identified as Native American, Native Hawaiian or another Pacific Islander.

Harvard’s reported Black enrollment was 11.5% in the Class of 2029, 14% in the Class of 2028 and 18% in the Class of 2027.

Enrollment percentages alone do not prove or disprove unlawful use of race, because they describe who enrolled, not how each applicant was evaluated. That is the gap the government says applicant-level data would fill. Judge Joun made no finding about these figures.

Is This the Same as the Other Trump Administration Lawsuits Against Harvard?

No. The disputes are separate.

• The federal funding dispute. Harvard challenged efforts to freeze federal grants and contracts, raising First Amendment and governance issues.
• The antisemitism dispute. Separate litigation involves allegations that Harvard failed to address antisemitism and discrimination against Jewish and Israeli students.
• The admissions-data reporting dispute. In Massachusetts v. Department of Education, No. 1:26-cv-11229, states and educational organizations challenge the Education Department’s Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement requirements. Harvard referred to it when asking Judge Joun to stay this case, but he did not decide it.

What Does the Ruling Mean for Harvard Applicants and Students?

The ruling does not change the admissions process, invalidate past admissions decisions or create any right to compensation. There is no settlement, no claim form and no deadline.

• Could agencies eventually obtain applicant records? Possibly. The judge did not decide that.
• Does the dismissal prove Harvard’s admissions are fair? No.
• Does the 2023 Supreme Court ruling still apply? Yes.
• Can the government investigate Harvard again? Yes, if it follows the required procedures.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Harvard Admissions Lawsuit

Why was the Trump administration’s Harvard admissions lawsuit dismissed?

Judge Myong J. Joun found the government did not adequately show that the Justice Department and Education Department completed the required voluntary-compliance steps before seeking court enforcement.

When was the Harvard admissions lawsuit dismissed?

November 2, 2026, by the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Who is the judge in United States v. President and Fellows of Harvard College?

U.S. District Judge Myong J. Joun.

What did the Justice Department want Harvard to provide?

Years of individual-level admissions data, including grades, test scores, essays, extracurricular activities, race and ethnicity information, admissions policies and final decisions, across Harvard College, Harvard Law School and Harvard Medical School.

Did Harvard win the lawsuit?

Harvard won the motion to dismiss. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, the government can pursue another case after fixing the procedural problems.

Did the judge find that Harvard discriminated?

No. The court did not decide whether Harvard violated Title VI or discriminated against any applicant.

Can the Justice Department refile the Harvard lawsuit?

Yes. A DOJ spokesperson said the government intends to amend its complaint.

Is Harvard required to hand over the admissions records now?

No. The ruling did not order production, and it did not decide whether Harvard may refuse all future requests.

Did the judge decide that the administration retaliated against Harvard?

No. The case was resolved on procedural grounds, so the retaliation argument was not decided.

What is Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

A federal law that prohibits discrimination based on race, color or national origin in programs receiving federal financial assistance.

How is this different from Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard?

The 2023 case challenged Harvard’s race-conscious admissions program. The 2026 case concerns the government’s effort to compel records to investigate compliance with that decision.

Is the Harvard admissions lawsuit a class action?

No. The United States brought it. It was not filed by students or applicants.

Final Takeaway

Judge Joun dismissed the government’s Harvard admissions lawsuit because the government had not adequately shown that it completed the procedures required by Title VI and the Justice and Education Departments’ own regulations. The dismissal is without prejudice, and DOJ has said it plans to try again. The court did not decide whether Harvard discriminated or whether the government can ultimately compel applicant-level records, so the larger fight over federal oversight of admissions is still open.

Related reading: browse more U.S. civil rights and education law coverage at AllAboutLawyer.com.

Sources and Legal Authorities

1. Memorandum of Decision, United States v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, No. 1:26-cv-10844-MJJ, Doc. 44 (Nov. 2, 2026)
2. U.S. Department of Justice announcement of the original complaint (Feb. 13, 2026)
3. Amended Complaint, Doc. 27 (May 4, 2026)
4. Harvard’s Motion-to-Dismiss Memorandum, Doc. 32 (June 3, 2026)
5. Inside Higher Ed, DOJ, ED Demand for Harvard Admissions Info Dismissed (Nov. 3, 2026)
6. Reuters, US Judge Dismisses Trump Administration’s Harvard Admissions Probe Case (Nov. 2, 2026)
7. The Harvard Crimson, Federal Judge Dismisses Admissions Lawsuit Against Harvard (Nov. 3, 2026)
8. Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023)
9. 42 U.S.C. § 2000d
10. 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-1
11. 28 C.F.R. § 42.108
12. 34 C.F.R. § 100.8
13. Harvard College Admissions Statistics

This article is for general information and is not legal advice. AllAboutLawyer.com is not a law firm.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against the Court’s November 2, 2026 Memorandum of Decision, the Department of Justice’s complaint, Harvard’s motion to dismiss and the cited statutes and regulations, as of November 3, 2026. Last Updated: November 3, 2026.