Federal enrollment data released in early 2026 is providing the first comprehensive, nationwide picture of how the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision ending race-conscious admissions has reshaped where students enroll. A new report from Class Action analyzes first-time enrollment trends at more than 3,000 colleges and universities, comparing fall 2024 enrollments—the first cohort fully affected by the ruling—to average outcomes from 2022 and 2023.
Drawing on Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) figures covering more than 3.5 million first-year students, the report finds that the most pronounced demographic shifts occurred at the most selective institutions. Highly selective colleges, and Ivy Plus institutions in particular, experienced notable declines in both the number and share of underrepresented students of color, with Black students seeing the steepest drops. At the same time, enrollments of White and Asian American students remained largely stable across most sectors, with only modest increases for Asian American students at Ivy Plus schools.
Outside the most selective tier, however, the pattern reversed. Underrepresented student enrollment increased across much of the higher education landscape, particularly at public institutions and state flagship universities. Several flagships saw double-digit gains in Black and Hispanic first-year enrollment, suggesting that students who may previously have enrolled at elite private institutions instead chose—or were admitted to—less selective public universities.
Class Action attributes these outcomes to what it describes as a cascade effect within the admissions ecosystem. As access to highly selective institutions narrowed after the elimination of race-conscious admissions, highly qualified students of color were more likely to enroll at institutions lower on the selectivity ladder. That shift, in turn, displaced other students to still less selective colleges, redistributing diversity across the system rather than eliminating it outright.
The report emphasizes that these enrollment shifts should not be read as evidence that admissions decisions were previously “race-based.” Instead, it argues that race-conscious admissions functioned as one of many contextual factors—similar to legacy status, athletic recruitment, or geographic background—that helped admissions offices differentiate among large pools of highly qualified applicants. According to the report, focusing solely on enrollment outcomes without examining applicant pools, admissions decisions, and yield rates risks oversimplifying a far more complex process.
Notably, the data also complicates assumptions about which institutions would benefit from the policy change. Historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), which some observers predicted would see enrollment growth, instead experienced declines in both overall enrollment and Black first-year enrollment in aggregate. Meanwhile, public universities in states that had already banned race-conscious admissions prior to the Supreme Court decision saw increased enrollment of underrepresented students, suggesting that a nationwide ban altered long-standing enrollment dynamics in unexpected ways.
While the redistribution of students of color across a broader range of institutions may appear positive on its face, the report raises concerns about longer-term outcomes. The data show a modest shift in Black student enrollment toward institutions with lower graduation rates and lower expected post-college earnings. Although these changes are not dramatic in scale, Class Action cautions that they may have meaningful implications for individual students’ educational and economic trajectories.
To accompany the report, Class Action launched a public Post-SFFA Enrollment Dashboard that allows users to examine enrollment trends by race and gender across institutional types and over time. The organization frames the tool as part of a broader effort to push back against simplistic narratives about merit, fairness, and diversity in admissions policy.
Ultimately, the report concludes that the first year of post-SFFA data underscores a central reality: college admissions operate as an interconnected ecosystem. Changes at a small number of highly selective institutions can reverberate across the entire sector, producing outcomes that are neither uniformly catastrophic nor uniformly benign—but deeply consequential for access, equity, and opportunity in American higher education.
