A federal judge in Massachusetts has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from requiring a group of public universities to submit extensive admissions data tied to race and sex, marking a significant setback for a policy designed to enforce the Supreme Court’s 2023 ban on race-conscious admissions.
In an April 3 ruling, U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV granted a preliminary injunction requested by attorneys general from 17 Democratic-led states, preventing the U.S. Department of Education from compelling compliance with a newly created federal survey. The data collection effort, introduced through the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), sought detailed information on applicants and admitted students across a seven-year period, including demographic breakdowns and academic metrics.
The administration had argued that the expanded data collection was necessary to determine whether colleges were continuing to consider race in admissions decisions despite the Supreme Court’s ruling. The requirement stemmed from a 2025 presidential directive ordering federal education officials to increase transparency and monitor potential noncompliance.
However, Saylor concluded that while the department has legal authority to collect such data, the way it implemented the policy likely violated federal administrative law. In his opinion, he pointed to the “rushed and chaotic manner” in which the new reporting requirements were developed, finding that the process failed to adequately incorporate feedback from universities and other stakeholders.
The court record shows that the Education Department moved forward under a compressed 120-day timeline set by the White House, bypassing its typical review procedures and limiting opportunities for meaningful input. Thousands of public comments raised concerns about feasibility, data accuracy, and student privacy, particularly given the requirement to provide retrospective data many institutions do not routinely collect.
Saylor also highlighted broader structural concerns within the agency, noting that ongoing efforts to scale back the Department of Education—including significant staffing reductions at the National Center for Education Statistics—undermined its ability to manage such a complex data initiative.
State officials who brought the lawsuit argued that the policy imposed unrealistic demands on institutions and exposed them to potential penalties for incomplete or inaccurate submissions. In a statement cited by Reuters, New York Attorney General Letitia James said, “schools should not have to scramble to produce years of sensitive information to satisfy an arbitrary and unlawful demand.”
The ruling follows a series of temporary orders that had already delayed compliance deadlines for affected institutions. At one point, colleges in the plaintiff states were granted extensions while the court considered whether to block the policy more broadly. The injunction now halts enforcement of the requirement for those states while litigation continues.
Although the decision does not resolve the case on its merits, it signals skepticism from the court about the administration’s approach. Saylor found that the states are likely to succeed in their claim that the policy constitutes “arbitrary and capricious” agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, a key standard governing federal rulemaking.
For now, the decision provides temporary relief to public universities in the affected states, while leaving open the broader question of how the federal government will monitor compliance with the Supreme Court’s affirmative action ruling moving forward.
