A federal judge in Boston on Monday dismissed the Justice Department’s lawsuit to force Harvard to hand over applicant-level admissions records, including race, grades, test scores and essays. Judge Myong J. Joun ruled that the government sued before taking the steps federal civil rights law requires first: telling Harvard exactly what it was doing wrong and what action would follow, and deciding that voluntary compliance could not be reached.
The dismissal is without prejudice. That means the government can fix the problem and come back. The judge was explicit that he did not decide whether Harvard has discriminated, or whether Harvard will ultimately have to produce the data. We read the 10-page memorandum of decision on the federal court docket.
The case at a glance
| Case | United States v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, No. 1:26-cv-10844 (D. Mass.) |
|---|---|
| Filed | February 13, 2026 |
| Judge | U.S. District Judge Myong J. Joun |
| Argued | September 24, 2026 |
| Decided | November 2, 2026: Harvard’s motion to dismiss granted without prejudice; alternative request for a stay denied as moot |
| Law at issue | Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d and 2000d-1; 28 C.F.R. § 42.108(d) (Justice Department); 34 C.F.R. § 100.8(d) (Education Department) |
What the government wanted
After the Supreme Court ended race-conscious admissions in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023), the Justice Department and the Education Department opened reviews of whether Harvard was complying. According to the decision, their requests sought applicant-level admissions information, academic measures, race and ethnicity, essays or other records, and admissions outcomes.
- Justice Department. Requested records in April 2025 from Harvard College, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Law School. Harvard produced material in May 2025. The government says it did not include the applicant-level data it needed. DOJ extended the deadline to October 10, 2025, said there would be no more extensions, and warned that failing to produce everything would be treated as a failure to cooperate.
- Education Department. Its Office for Civil Rights opened its own review on May 2, 2025. It sent a “Denial of Access” letter on September 19, 2025, and a March 23, 2026 letter raising administrative proceedings or a referral to DOJ. It referred the matter to DOJ on April 24, 2026.
The government also claimed Harvard breached its funding agreements by not handing over the data.
Why the judge dismissed it
Title VI lets federal agencies enforce civil rights rules against schools that take federal money, but the statute puts a condition on that power. Under 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-1, “no such action shall be taken until the department or agency concerned has advised the appropriate person or persons of the failure to comply with the requirement and has determined that compliance cannot be secured by voluntary means.” We read the statute and both agencies’ regulations at their primary sources.
The Justice Department. DOJ’s own regulation, 28 C.F.R. § 42.108(d), says no enforcement action may be taken until the responsible official “has determined that compliance cannot be secured by voluntary means,” the action “has been approved by the Attorney General,” and the recipient “has been notified of its failure to comply and of the action to be taken to effect compliance.” Joun found the complaint fell short on the last step. “The complaint does not allege that DOJ informed Harvard of the action it would take, namely, litigation, should Harvard fail to comply, nor does the complaint allege the specific failure identified,” he wrote. “This is required under § 42.108(d), and this failure is dispositive at this stage.”
He rejected the argument that the Assistant Attorney General’s signature on the complaint was itself the required determination. Notice of the action to be taken must come “before that action is taken, not in tandem with it.” He also wrote that “a deadline and a threat to sue, standing alone, do not necessarily demonstrate compliance with the regulatory voluntary-compliance process.”
The Education Department. Its regulation, 34 C.F.R. § 100.8(d), adds a waiting period: at least 10 days after notice, during which “additional efforts shall be made to persuade the recipient” to comply. Joun said the time that passed between the September and March letters did not by itself satisfy that rule, because the regulation “couples timing with additional efforts to persuade.” He also rejected the argument that more talks would have been futile because DOJ had already sued: “Futility cannot be assumed merely because one department has sued on a related demand.”
The contract claim. The judge dismissed it too, because the government did not point to any contractual duty separate from the Title VI rules themselves. He would not let “the same information demand” proceed on a contract theory while the required pre-enforcement steps were not shown.
What the ruling does not decide
Joun was careful to limit the decision. “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,” he wrote.
- The government does not have to prove discrimination first to demand compliance information. The judge said the information duties in the regulations are “distinct from the prohibition on discrimination itself.”
- He did not decide whether the requests are overbroad, whether they are relevant, or whether the government acted for an improper or retaliatory purpose. “Those questions remain open.”
- He did not require agencies to negotiate forever. A voluntary-compliance determination “does not require an agency to abandon an investigation or to negotiate indefinitely.”
What happens next
Because the dismissal is without prejudice, the government can complete the missing administrative steps, or file a new complaint that identifies how it already met them. “This conclusion does not prevent Education from proceeding after complying with those steps,” the judge wrote. The government could also appeal to the First Circuit. As of WBUR’s report Monday, neither Harvard nor the Justice Department had commented.
The ruling is the latest in a run of court losses for the Trump administration in its fight with Harvard, WBUR reported, including rulings on billions of dollars in funding cuts. The decision mentions a related case, Massachusetts v. Department of Education, No. 26-cv-11229, which Harvard had asked the court to wait for; the stay request was denied as moot. Our tracker of lawsuits between Massachusetts and Washington.
Frequently asked questions
Did Harvard win the admissions data lawsuit?
For now. On November 2, 2026, Judge Myong J. Joun dismissed the Justice Department’s suit without prejudice, because the government had not shown it completed the notice and voluntary-compliance steps Title VI requires before suing. The government can try again.
Does Harvard have to turn over its admissions data?
Not under this lawsuit. The judge did not decide whether Harvard will ultimately have to provide applicant-level data if the agencies follow the required process.
Did the judge find Harvard discriminated, or did not?
Neither. The decision says it does not determine whether Harvard has discriminated. It decides only whether the government met the prerequisites for asking a court to enforce its demand.
What does Title VI require before the government sues a school?
Under 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-1, the agency must advise the school of its failure to comply and determine that compliance cannot be secured by voluntary means. The Justice Department’s rule also requires notice of the action to be taken and the Attorney General’s approval. The Education Department’s rule adds at least 10 days of further efforts to persuade the school.
What does “without prejudice” mean?
The case is closed, but the government is not barred from bringing the same claim again once it fixes the problem the court identified.
Sources: Memorandum of Decision and Order, United States v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, No. 1:26-cv-10844 (D. Mass. Nov. 2, 2026), Doc. Nos. 44 and 45, read on the federal docket; WBUR, November 2, 2026. 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-1, 28 C.F.R. § 42.108 and 34 C.F.R. § 100.8 read at their primary sources. Students for Fair Admissions, 600 U.S. 181, verified on CourtListener. General information, not legal advice.