Harvard Rebukes DOJ Suit Over Admissions Records as ‘Ill-Conceived’ and ‘Retaliatory’

Harvard sharply rebuffed the Department of Justice’s lawsuit seeking its admissions records in a Tuesday court filing, accusing the Trump administration of prematurely escalating negotiations into litigation for political ends.

In a 20-page response filed in the U.S District Court in Massachusetts, the University argued that the DOJ mischaracterized months of back-and-forth over document production and failed to follow required procedures under Title VI.

The clash stems from the Trump administration’s investigation into whether Harvard has complied with the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision banning the use of race in admissions. In its February complaint, the DOJ alleged Harvard “thwarted” and “slow walked” the inquiry by withholding key admissions data, placing Harvard in violation of Title VI and its obligations as a federal grant recipient.

Harvard disputed that account on Tuesday, writing that it produced more than 2,000 pages of records — including aggregate enrollment data, admissions policies, training materials, and internal guidance documents — and remained open to negotiations before the government filed suit.

The Trump administration has sought extensive admissions data from Harvard. As part of its investigation, federal officials sought five years of applicant-level admissions data across Harvard College, Harvard Law School, and Harvard Medical School, including applicants’ grades, test scores, essays, extracurricular activities, admissions outcomes, and race and ethnicity.

In its response, Harvard pointed to its document productions last May, when it declined to turn over certain individualized applicant records — including essays — describing them as “private and sensitive” and “unnecessary” to demonstrate compliance.

The University also challenged the DOJ’s timeline. While the government claimed in February that Harvard stopped cooperating in October 2025, the University wrote that discussions were interrupted by a federal shutdown and never resumed before the lawsuit was filed months later.

“The Department’s abrupt decision to choose litigation over negotiation violates both the requirements of Title VI and Department regulations,” Harvard’s lawyers wrote. “The suit fails on that basis alone.”

Harvard further framed the lawsuit as part of a broader pressure campaign by the Trump administration against Harvard for defying federal demands, linking the case to stalled settlement talks and public statements by administration officials.

Harvard noted that the suit was filed less than two weeks after U.S. President Donald Trump announced on his social media platform Truth Social that he wanted “nothing further to do, into the future, with Harvard.”

The filing also pointed to other public statements made by Trump and top Justice Department lawyer Harmeet K. Dhillon as evidence that the case is “not about compelling the production of documents” but instead an effort to “make an example of Harvard and generate headlines.”

“This suit actually seeks to transform routine negotiations over administrative document productions into an inappropriate an ill-conceived Title VI case,” Harvard’s lawyers wrote. “This case is just another page from the year-long retaliatory Government playbook, and it fails for the same reasons.”

Harvard denied any violation of federal civil rights law, calling the government’s claims “incomplete” and asserting that its admissions practices comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling.

The University’s alleged noncompliance is also under investigation by the Department of Education, which in March gave Harvard 20 days to provide the requested admissions records. A Harvard spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment on whether the University submitted the data before the April 12 deadline.

The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Myong J. Joun, a Biden appointee, who previously granted a temporary restraining order blocking the Department of Education from canceling teacher-training grants — a decision that the Supreme Court later stayed in a 5-4 decision pending appeal.

Legal experts have cast doubt on the strength of the government’s case, saying its data demands may violate the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, which limits the disclosure of students’ educational records.

Ten legal scholars and higher education experts who spoke with The Crimson in February said the law — along with Harvard’s First Amendment protections — could complicate the Justice Department’s efforts to compel the release of more detailed data.

—Staff writer Hugo C. Chiasson can be reached at [email protected] or on Signal at hcc.35. Follow him on X @HugoChiassonn.

—Staff writer Elise A. Spenner can be reached at [email protected] or on Signal at elisespenner.82. Follow her on X @EliseSpenner.