A federal judge dismissed the Justice Department’s lawsuit against Harvard University on Monday, rejecting the case on procedural grounds.
Harvard Wins Legal Victory as DOJ Suit Dismissed
U.S. District Judge Myong J. Joun in Boston ruled that the department failed to complete the required voluntary‑compliance steps before filing suit, a narrow procedural defect that did not address the core dispute.
The dismissal without prejudice leaves the departments free to refile after correcting the procedural deficiencies, preserving the chance to obtain applicant‑level data.
“A deadline and a threat to sue, standing alone, do not necessarily demonstrate compliance with the regulatory voluntary‑compliance process,” Joun wrote.
The Justice Department filed the suit on February 13, accusing Harvard of withholding admissions data needed to verify whether it continues to consider race after the Supreme Court’s 2023 ban on race‑based affirmative action.
The complaint alleged Harvard “has a recent history of racial discrimination” and “continues to discriminate” in its admissions process, citing slow‑walked production of required documents.
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said on February 13, “Providing requested data is a basic expectation of any credible compliance process, and refusal to cooperate creates concerns about university practices.”
The 2023 Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College held that Harvard’s affirmative‑action policies violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, a ruling mirrored in a companion case against the University of North Carolina.
Harvard said it would “certainly comply” with the decision and emphasized that “diversity and difference are essential to academic excellence,” according to a June 29 statement.
Harvard’s Class of 2029 data show black American students at 11.5 % of the freshman class, down 2.5 percentage points from the prior year, while Asian students rose to 41 %, up from 37 % the previous year.
A previous version of the article misstated the DOJ filing date; The Epoch Times regrets the error.
