Supreme Court Ends Harvard Affirmative Action, Sparks Federal Investigation into Legacy Admissions—What Students Must Know Now

The Supreme Court’s June 2023 landmark ruling banning race-based admissions at Harvard triggered seismic legal shockwaves still reshaping college access in 2025. Harvard can no longer consider race in admissions under Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, effectively overturning decades of affirmative action precedent. Within days, civil rights groups filed new lawsuits challenging Harvard’s legacy admission practices, sparking a Department of Education investigation. Black enrollment dropped 4% in Harvard’s Class of 2028. Now, Students for Fair Admissions is monitoring compliance at 150 campuses while state attorneys general launch new discrimination investigations at Cornell, University of California, and military academies.

The legal battlefield has expanded beyond race-conscious admissions to target legacy preferences, donor advantages, and DEI programs—creating unprecedented uncertainty for applicants navigating the most selective admissions landscape in American history.

What Are the Current Harvard Admissions Lawsuits?

Harvard faces two parallel legal battles fundamentally reshaping elite college admissions: the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s affirmative action ban and an active federal investigation into legacy preferences.

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023)

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Harvard’s race-conscious admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that Harvard’s use of race lacked “sufficiently focused and measurable objectives” and relied on racial stereotyping. The Court determined race functioned as a “determinative tip” for a significant percentage of admitted African American and Hispanic applicants.

The decision effectively overruled Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978). However, colleges may still consider “an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.”

Legacy Admissions Federal Investigation (2023-Present)

In July 2023, Lawyers for Civil Rights filed a Title VI complaint with the Department of Education on behalf of three organizations: the Chica Project, African Community Economic Development of New England, and the Greater Boston Latino Network. The Department opened a civil rights investigation into whether Harvard discriminates by giving preferential treatment to predominantly white legacy and donor-related applicants.

Court documents from the SFFA case revealed that 70% of Harvard’s legacy and donor-related applicants are white. Donor-related applicants are seven times more likely to gain admission than non-donor applicants; legacy applicants are six times more likely. For Harvard’s classes of 2014-2019, legacies were admitted at 33.6% compared to 5.9% for non-legacies. About 28% of Harvard’s Class of 2019 were legacies.

The investigation remains active in 2025. If the Department finds violations, it could force Harvard to eliminate legacy preferences or lose billions in federal funding.

New Wave of Discrimination Lawsuits (2025)

Following the Harvard precedent, multiple universities now face similar challenges:

• Cornell University: Stanley Zhong and Students Who Oppose Racial Discrimination filed suit in March 2025 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, alleging discrimination against Asian applicants in violation of Title VI.
  
• University of California System: Students Against Racial Discrimination sued the nine-campus UC system in February 2025 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, claiming “holistic” admissions policies violate Title VI and the Equal Protection Clause.
  
• Military Academies: In August 2025, the Justice Department announced settlements with West Point and Air Force Academy over race-based admissions. In December 2024, Judge Richard D. Bennett ruled the U.S. Naval Academy could continue considering race due to “military cohesion and national security factors.”
  

Students for Fair Admissions sent compliance letters to Yale, Princeton, and Duke in September 2024, questioning whether their post-ruling admissions policies violate the Court’s decision.

What Legal Claims Are Being Filed Against Harvard?

Harvard admissions litigation involves distinct legal theories targeting different aspects of the process:

Title VI Civil Rights Violations

Both the affirmative action and legacy cases allege Harvard violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs receiving federal financial assistance. Harvard receives over $600 million annually in federal research funding.

The Supreme Court held that Harvard’s race-conscious admissions violated Title VI by using race as more than one factor among many. The legacy complaint alleges donor and legacy preferences create a disparate impact on applicants of color, concentrating advantages among white families.

Equal Protection Clause Violations

The Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause prohibits states from denying “any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” While this directly applies only to public institutions like UNC, the Supreme Court extended its principles to private universities through Title VI.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote that “eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it”—language civil rights groups now invoke to challenge legacy preferences that disproportionately benefit white applicants.

Disparate Impact Discrimination

The legacy admissions complaint argues that even facially neutral policies violate civil rights law if they create unjustified disparate impacts on protected groups. Between 2014 and 2019, legacies constituted 15% of Harvard’s admitted students despite representing less than 5% of applicants. Black, Latinx, and Asian American applicants are dramatically underrepresented among legacy admits.

Unlike intentional discrimination, disparate impact claims don’t require proof that Harvard intended to discriminate—only that legacy preferences systematically disadvantage applicants of color without educational necessity.

Violation of Federal Funding Conditions

Both lawsuits leverage Harvard’s dependence on federal funding. Title VI includes enforcement provisions allowing the government to terminate funding for institutions that discriminate. The legacy complaint explicitly requests that the Department of Education declare Harvard ineligible for federal funds unless it eliminates donor and legacy preferences.

Recent Court Rulings and Their Implications

The Supreme Court’s Harvard decision reshaped constitutional law governing educational diversity. Here’s what courts determined and what it means:

Supreme Court Holding

The Majority Opinion: Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, held that Harvard’s admissions program violated the Equal Protection Clause by:

1. Lacking sufficiently measurable objectives
2. Relying on racial stereotypes about applicants’ personal qualities
3. Using race as a negative factor for some applicants
4. Lacking meaningful end points
5. Operating as essentially a system of racial balancing

What Harvard Cannot Do: Universities cannot use race as a factor in admissions decisions. They cannot assign numerical values to racial identity. They cannot pursue racial demographic targets that function as quotas. They cannot assume that an applicant’s race determines specific experiences, perspectives, or characteristics.

What Harvard Can Still Do: Universities may consider essays discussing how race affected an applicant’s life through discrimination or inspiration. They can pursue socioeconomic diversity. They can recruit from underrepresented geographic areas. They can eliminate legacy preferences and other advantages that disproportionately benefit white applicants.

Justice Sotomayor’s Dissent: Joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, Sotomayor argued the majority “rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress” and ignores “why diversity in higher education matters.” She warned the decision would “cement a superficial rule of colorblindness” while entrenching racial inequality.

Justice Thomas’s Concurrence: Thomas wrote separately to argue that “the Constitution abhors classifications based on race” and that diversity is not a compelling interest that justifies racial preferences. He challenged Harvard’s assumption that minority students think alike based on their race.

Justice Kavanaugh’s Concurrence: Kavanaugh emphasized that universities may still consider “an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life” and “an applicant’s unique ability to contribute to the university.”

Military Academy Exception

The Court exempted military academies from its ruling, noting in a footnote that “the Nation’s military academies have potentially distinct interests that may demand distinct tailored accommodations.” In August 2025, however, West Point and the Air Force Academy voluntarily ended race-based admissions through Justice Department settlements. The Naval Academy continues the practice after Judge Bennett’s December 2024 ruling found compelling national security justifications.

Impact on Harvard’s Class of 2028

September 2024 data revealed the ruling’s immediate effects:

• Black enrollment: Decreased 4% compared to Class of 2027
• Hispanic/Latino enrollment: Increased 2%
• Asian American enrollment: No change
• Unreported race/ethnicity: Jumped to 8%, double the previous year

Columbia University saw even more dramatic changes, with Black or African American students dropping from 20% to 12%. These statistics vindicated Justice Sotomayor’s prediction that the decision would “reverse nearly five decades of progress” in diversifying elite institutions.

How the Department of Education Investigation Works

Understanding the legacy admissions investigation requires knowing how Title VI enforcement operates:

Investigation Process

The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) began investigating Harvard in July 2023 after receiving the civil rights complaint. OCR regional director Ramzi Ajami’s letter to Harvard stated: “Opening the complaint for investigation in no way implies that OCR has made a determination on the merits of the complaint. During the investigation, OCR is a neutral fact-finder, collecting and analyzing relevant evidence.”

OCR investigates whether Harvard’s donor and legacy preferences create a disparate impact on the basis of race in violation of Title VI and its implementing regulations (34 C.F.R. Part 100).

What OCR Can Demand

The Department can request:

• Admissions data by race, legacy status, and donor relationships
• Internal communications about legacy preference policies
• Statistical analyses of admission rates by demographic groups
• Evidence of educational necessity for legacy preferences
• Information about how Harvard monitors and evaluates these policies

Potential Outcomes

1. No Violation Found: OCR closes the investigation, and Harvard continues legacy preferences.
   
2. Voluntary Resolution: Harvard agrees to phase out or significantly modify legacy and donor preferences. This would establish a national precedent pressuring other elite universities.
   
3. Formal Finding of Violation: OCR issues a Letter of Findings and negotiates a resolution agreement. If Harvard refuses, OCR can initiate administrative enforcement proceedings.
   
4. Funding Termination: As a last resort, the Secretary of Education can terminate Harvard’s federal funding after formal hearings. Title 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-1 requires exhaustion of detailed procedures before funding revocation.
   

Current Status (October 2025)

The investigation remains active with no public resolution. Harvard stated it is “reviewing aspects of our admissions policies to assure compliance with the law” but has not announced changes to legacy preferences. The Department has not issued findings or proposed resolutions.

What Are the Liability Standards in Educational Discrimination Cases?

Courts apply rigorous scrutiny to race-conscious admissions while using different standards for other preferential policies.

Strict Scrutiny for Racial Classifications

Any consideration of race in admissions triggers strict scrutiny, the most demanding standard in constitutional law. The government must prove:

1. Compelling Interest: The university pursues a genuinely important objective. Obtaining educational benefits from diversity was recognized as compelling in Grutter, but the current Court rejected it.
   
2. Narrow Tailoring: Race-based distinctions must be necessary to achieve the compelling interest and employ the least restrictive means. Harvard failed this test because its use of race lacked meaningful limits and affected numerous applicants decisively.
   

Rational Basis Review for Legacy Preferences

Legacy and donor preferences don’t involve suspect classifications like race, so courts review them under rational basis scrutiny—the most deferential standard. Harvard must merely show a rational relationship between legacy preferences and legitimate interests like:

• Maintaining strong alumni relationships
• Encouraging donations that fund financial aid
• Building intergenerational campus community

This explains why legacy preferences have withstood legal challenges despite advantaging predominantly white applicants. However, Title VI’s disparate impact regulations could provide an alternative path for challenge without requiring strict scrutiny.

Disparate Impact Standard Under Title VI

Regulations implementing Title VI (34 C.F.R. § 100.3(b)(2)) prohibit policies that create unjustified disparate impacts on protected groups. To establish liability:

1. Statistical Disparity: Plaintiffs must show legacy preferences disproportionately exclude applicants of color.
   
2. Lack of Educational Necessity: Harvard must prove legacy preferences serve important educational objectives that cannot be achieved through less discriminatory alternatives.
   
3. Causal Connection: The preference policy, not other factors, causes the disparity.
   

The legacy complaint alleges Harvard cannot demonstrate educational necessity because MIT, Amherst, Johns Hopkins, and other prestigious universities abolished legacy preferences without harming educational quality or alumni engagement.

Harvard’s Legal Defense Strategies

Harvard deployed sophisticated arguments in both cases, with mixed success.

Affirmative Action Defense (Unsuccessful)

Harvard argued its race-conscious admissions served compelling interests in:

• Educational benefits of diversity including cross-racial understanding and preparation for an increasingly diverse workforce
• Breaking down racial stereotypes
• Creating a robust exchange of ideas in the classroom
• Training future leaders across all sectors

Harvard contended it used race as only one factor among many in a holistic review process. Dean of Admissions William Fitzsimmons testified that race functioned as a “plus factor” similar to geographic diversity, first-generation status, or overcoming disadvantage.

The Court rejected these arguments, finding Harvard’s interest in diversity too vague and its use of race too influential.

Legacy Admissions Defense (Ongoing)

Harvard defends legacy preferences by arguing they:

1. Strengthen Alumni Community: Legacy policies build intergenerational connections and institutional loyalty. Parents remain engaged when their children attend.
   
2. Fund Financial Aid: Alumni donations fund need-based aid that diversifies the student body. A 2022 study found legacy students donate at higher rates, though the study acknowledged diversity costs.
   
3. Constitute Only a “Slight Tip”: Dean Fitzsimmons characterized legacy status as providing merely a “slight tip” in close cases, not determining admission.
   
4. Differ from Racial Classifications: Unlike race, family connections reflect earned relationships between alumni and their alma mater. They don’t implicate equal protection concerns.
   

Critics counter that Harvard cannot demonstrate these objectives require legacy preferences or that they outweigh the discriminatory impact on applicants of color.

State-by-State Variations in Educational Discrimination Law

States are taking divergent approaches to college admissions regulation post-Harvard:

States Banning Legacy Admissions

Five states now prohibit or restrict legacy preferences:

1. California (2024): Banned legacy preferences at private universities receiving state financial aid, effective fall 2025.
   
2. Colorado (existing): Banned legacy preferences at public universities.
   
3. Illinois (2024): Prohibited legacy admissions at public universities. Pending legislation would extend to private institutions.
   
4. Maryland (2024): Banned legacy preferences at all institutions.
   
5. Virginia (2024): Prohibited legacy admissions at public universities.
   

Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, and New Jersey have introduced bills to eliminate legacy preferences. In 24 states, no public institutions offer legacy preferences.

States Attacking Post-Harvard Workarounds

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey ordered public universities to stop considering race in scholarship decisions the day of the Supreme Court ruling. University of Missouri petitioned courts in May 2024 for authority to override donor agreements mandating race-based scholarships.

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti joined Students for Fair Admissions in June 2025 to sue the Department of Education over federal grants to Hispanic-Serving Institutions, arguing racial and ethnic targeting violates the Equal Protection Clause.

States Defending Diversity Initiatives

Connecticut, California, and other states are exploring race-neutral alternatives like:

• Percentage plans guaranteeing admission to top state high school graduates
• Socioeconomic affirmative action
• Enhanced recruitment in underrepresented communities
• Holistic review emphasizing overcoming adversity

Comparison to Lawsuits Against Other Universities

Harvard’s legal troubles mirror broader challenges facing elite universities nationwide:

University of North Carolina (Decided with Harvard)

Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina was consolidated with Harvard for Supreme Court argument. The Court applied identical reasoning to strike down UNC’s race-conscious admissions. As a public university, UNC faced direct Fourteenth Amendment challenges, while Harvard’s case proceeded under Title VI.

University of California System (Active)

Students Against Racial Discrimination sued UC in February 2025, alleging its “holistic review” functions as a proxy for race-based admissions post-Harvard. The complaint claims UC considers race indirectly through essay prompts about identity, socioeconomic proxies correlated with race, and admissions officer training emphasizing diversity.

Cornell University (Active)

Stanley Zhong’s March 2025 lawsuit alleges Cornell systematically discriminates against Asian American applicants through subjective “personal ratings” similar to those challenged at Harvard. Zhong was rejected by 16 of 18 colleges despite a 3.97 GPA before Google hired him at age 18.

Yale, Princeton, Duke (Under Scrutiny)

Students for Fair Admissions sent warning letters to these universities in September 2024, questioning compliance with the Harvard decision. The letters demand transparency about how schools ensure race doesn’t factor into admissions and threaten litigation if evidence emerges of violations.

Military Academies (Partially Resolved)

West Point and Air Force Academy settled with the Justice Department in August 2025, agreeing to end race-conscious admissions. The Naval Academy continues the practice after Judge Bennett’s ruling found compelling national security justifications under the Court’s military exception.

What These Lawsuits Mean for Harvard Applicants and Students

The legal upheaval creates both challenges and opportunities for prospective Harvard students:

For Underrepresented Minority Applicants

The Supreme Court decision and subsequent enrollment data confirm what Justice Sotomayor predicted: Black and Latino representation will decline at elite universities. Harvard’s 4% drop in Black enrollment for Class of 2028 represents approximately 30-40 fewer admitted students.

Strategic Response: Emphasize how race has shaped your individual experiences in personal essays. The Court explicitly preserved universities’ ability to consider applicants’ discussions of how race affected their lives through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise. Authentic, specific narratives about racial identity remain permissible.

For Asian American Applicants

The ruling theoretically removes the “negative action” Students for Fair Admissions documented—lower personal ratings for Asian Americans compared to other racial groups with similar qualifications. However, Harvard’s Class of 2028 data showed no change in Asian American enrollment, suggesting Harvard found alternative methods to maintain demographic targets.

For Legacy and Donor-Related Applicants

Legacy status remains a significant advantage at Harvard despite the federal investigation. However, uncertainty looms. If the Department of Education forces elimination of legacy preferences, thousands of applicants will compete for slots previously reserved for connected families.

Practical Consideration: Even with legacy advantages, Harvard admits only about one-third of legacy applicants. Academic credentials, extracurriculars, and personal qualities still matter decisively.

For All Applicants

Harvard’s holistic review now emphasizes:

1. Socioeconomic adversity: First-generation college students, low-income applicants, and those overcoming economic hardship receive special consideration as race-neutral diversity mechanisms.
   
2. Geographic diversity: Applicants from underrepresented states and rural areas may benefit as Harvard seeks diverse perspectives without using race.
   
3. Unique experiences: The more distinctive your background and perspective, the stronger your application. Harvard seeks students who will contribute novel viewpoints to classroom discussions.
   
4. Academic excellence: With racial preferences eliminated and legacy preferences under threat, academic credentials become even more critical. Harvard admitted students averaged 1520+ SAT scores and near-perfect GPAs.

Legislative Impacts on University Admissions Policies

Congress and state legislatures are reshaping the admissions landscape through new laws and proposed bills.

Federal Legislation

Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) and Representative Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) introduced bipartisan legislation in 2023 to ban legacy admissions at colleges receiving federal funding. The bill has not advanced but demonstrates unusual cross-party opposition to the practice.

The Higher Education Act, due for reauthorization, could include provisions affecting admissions preferences. Some lawmakers propose tying federal student aid eligibility to ending legacy preferences.

State Legislative Trends

Beyond the five states banning legacy admissions, several are considering broader admissions reforms:

• Massachusetts: Pending bill would eliminate legacy preferences and require admissions transparency, including publication of admit rates by demographic categories.
  
• New York: Proposed legislation would ban legacy preferences and require universities to report legacy admit rates annually.
  
• New Jersey: Bill under debate would prohibit legacy admissions and create penalties for universities that fail to comply.
  

Impact on Private Universities

Private universities argue that state and federal regulation of admissions violates institutional autonomy and academic freedom. However, courts consistently hold that accepting federal funds subjects institutions to nondiscrimination requirements. Harvard receives over $600 million annually in federal research funding—leverage the government can use to enforce policy preferences.

FAQs About Harvard Admissions Lawsuits

Q: Can Harvard legally consider race in admissions after the Supreme Court decision?

A: No. Harvard cannot use race as a factor in admissions decisions. However, applicants may discuss how race affected their lives in essays, and Harvard can consider those individual narratives. Harvard cannot assume anything about an applicant based on their racial identity.

Q: Will Harvard eliminate legacy admissions?

A: Unknown. As of October 2025, Harvard continues legacy preferences despite the ongoing Department of Education investigation. Harvard stated it is reviewing admissions policies but has announced no changes. If the investigation finds violations, Harvard may be forced to eliminate legacy preferences to retain federal funding.

Q: How did Harvard’s enrollment change after the affirmative action ruling?

A: For Class of 2028, Black enrollment decreased 4%, Hispanic/Latino enrollment increased 2%, and Asian American enrollment remained unchanged. Notably, 8% of students didn’t report race—double the previous year—suggesting some applicants strategically declined to disclose racial identity.

Q: Can Harvard legally consider socioeconomic status in admissions?

A: Yes. Economic background, first-generation college status, and overcoming financial hardship remain permissible considerations. Many universities are emphasizing socioeconomic diversity as a race-neutral alternative for achieving diverse student bodies.

Q: What happens to donor-funded scholarships requiring racial preferences?

A: This remains legally uncertain. University of Missouri is petitioning courts for authority to override donor agreements mandating race-based awards. Donors may sue to enforce original gift terms, creating conflicts between honoring donor intent and complying with the Supreme Court ruling.

Q: Are legacy advantages at Harvard really that significant?

A: Yes. Between 2014-2019, legacy applicants were admitted at 33.6% compared to 5.9% for non-legacies—nearly six times higher. About 28% of Harvard’s Class of 2019 were legacies. Being a legacy doesn’t guarantee admission, but it provides a substantial boost.

Q: How are other Ivy League schools responding to these lawsuits?

A: Yale, Princeton, and Duke received warning letters from Students for Fair Admissions questioning compliance with the Harvard decision. Brown is reconsidering legacy preferences. All continue holistic review emphasizing race-neutral factors. None has voluntarily eliminated legacy admissions, but several are under increased scrutiny.

Conclusion: A New Era in College Admissions

Harvard’s legal battles represent the most significant transformation in American higher education admissions since Brown v. Board of Education. The Supreme Court’s affirmative action ban eliminates race-conscious admissions at all colleges and universities. Simultaneously, civil rights groups are leveraging the Court’s equality principles to challenge legacy preferences that perpetuate advantages for predominantly white, wealthy families.

The immediate impacts are clear: declining Black and Latino enrollment at elite universities, increased emphasis on socioeconomic diversity, and growing uncertainty about legacy preferences. The long-term implications remain unknown.

For applicants, these lawsuits create both obstacles and opportunities. Underrepresented minorities must find new ways to communicate their perspectives without relying on racial preferences. Legacy applicants face potential elimination of hereditary advantages. All students confront intensifying competition as admissions become theoretically more meritocratic—though legacy preferences and other advantages persist for now.

The Department of Education’s investigation into Harvard’s legacy admissions could prove as consequential as the Supreme Court’s affirmative action ruling. If the government forces elimination of legacy preferences, it would fundamentally reorder college admissions at elite universities where legacies comprise up to 30% of admitted students.

Harvard and its peer institutions will continue adapting to this new legal landscape. For prospective students, understanding these lawsuits isn’t just about legal minutiae—it’s about recognizing how dramatically the admissions process has transformed and strategizing accordingly.

The only certainty is continued legal challenges. Students for Fair Admissions is monitoring 150 campuses for compliance violations. State attorneys general are investigating whether universities are using race as a proxy through “holistic review.” Civil rights groups are pressing the Department of Education to eliminate legacy preferences. The legal battles that began with Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard will shape college admissions for generations.

Disclaimer: This information is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult an attorney specializing in civil rights law or educational law for specific legal guidance.

Related Articles:

• What Is Business Litigation Law
• What Is Breach of Contract in Business Law
• National Origin Discrimination Attorney

About the Author

Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah