U.S. District Court Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV in Boston issued a preliminary injunction on April 3, 2026, halting the Trump administration's effort to force public universities to submit detailed data on the race and sex of their applicants and admitted students. The lawsuit was filed by 17 Democratic state attorneys general. The judge found that the federal government likely has the legal authority to collect this kind of data — but said the administration's implementation was "rushed and chaotic" and almost certainly violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The injunction currently applies only to public universities in the plaintiff states.

On Friday, April 3, a federal judge put a hold on one of the Trump administration's most aggressive moves inside college admissions: a demand that universities across the country submit sweeping data to prove they are not using race as a factor in admissions decisions.

The ruling does not change how admissions work at any school. What it does is pause a data collection effort that had created significant logistical and legal concerns across higher education — and give Congress, the courts, and universities more time to sort out what federal oversight of admissions practices will actually look like.

What the Administration Was Demanding

In August 2025, President Trump issued an order directing the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) — an arm of the Education Department — to collect data from colleges and universities on the race and sex of their applicants, admitted students, and enrolled students.

The administration's stated rationale: ensuring that institutions were complying with the Supreme Court's 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ended the formal use of race in college admissions. Administration officials argued that without detailed data collection, the government had no way to verify whether schools were using personal statements, zip codes, or other proxies to effectively continue race-conscious selection.

Schools were given 120 days to comply.

What the Judge Found

U.S. District Court Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV heard a challenge filed by a coalition of 17 Democratic state attorneys general and issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the data demand against public universities in the plaintiff states.1

The judge's ruling was notable for what it did not say. Saylor did not rule that the administration lacked the authority to collect this kind of data. He found the government "likely has authority to require the submission of admissions data."

What he found problematic was the process — specifically, that the 120-day deadline made meaningful compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act impossible.

The judge wrote: "The 120-day deadline imposed by the President led directly to the failure of NCES to engage meaningfully with the institutions during the notice-and-comment process to address the multitude of problems presented by the new requirements."1

A Second Problem: NCES Has Been Cut

Judge Saylor raised a concern that goes beyond the legal procedural issue. He noted that NCES — the agency tasked with collecting, processing, and safeguarding the data — had seen significant staff reductions under the Trump administration.

The judge questioned whether the gutted agency would be able to manage the increased workload safely: NCES "never even acknowledged the existence of the staff reductions, much less explain how its reduced staff will be able to keep up with an increased workload," Saylor wrote, noting concerns about how a "hollowed-out agency" would effectively conduct disclosure risk reviews and produce reliable statistical analyses.2

This is not a small issue. Admissions data contains personally identifiable information. If the agency collecting it cannot adequately protect it or produce useful analysis, the data collection effort serves little purpose while creating real privacy exposure for students.

What This Means for Students Applying to College

The injunction does not change admissions policies at any school. The 2023 Supreme Court decision banning formal race-conscious admissions still stands. What the injunction pauses is the federal data collection — not the underlying legal requirement to comply with the Supreme Court ruling.

Some advice circulating online suggests that students should avoid mentioning race or identity in their application essays because of the current legal environment. This is overstated. The Supreme Court's 2023 ruling explicitly protected students' ability to discuss how their background, including racial identity, shaped their individual experiences in a personal essay. The prohibition is on institutions using race as a criterion in selection — not on students writing authentically about who they are.

For practical guidance on how to write a college application essay that reflects your real experience, the legal environment has not changed the core question: what do you want admissions readers to understand about you that isn't visible anywhere else in your application?

The data collection demand is part of a broader push by the Trump administration to enforce its interpretation of what race-neutral admissions looks like in practice. The administration has argued that schools are using socioeconomic status, first-generation status, and geographic diversity as proxies for race — and that without granular data, the federal government cannot tell whether genuine compliance is happening.

Higher education institutions and their legal advocates have argued that the data demands are overly broad, that the implementation process was legally deficient, and that the administration was using data collection as a mechanism to pressure schools rather than actually enforce the law.

The 17 state attorneys general who brought the lawsuit represent the core of public research university systems in the Northeast, Midwest, and West.

The admissions legal landscape is evolving rapidly. For students applying in the 2026-27 cycle, the most practical implication is that demonstrated-interest signals, authentic essays, and real evidence of achievement continue to matter at selective schools. The legal fights between the administration and universities play out separately from how individual applications are read.

What Happens Next

The preliminary injunction is not a final ruling — it is a pause while the full case works its way through the courts. The administration may appeal the injunction or restart the data collection process with a longer timeline that satisfies the APA's notice-and-comment requirements.

In the meantime, the Education Department retains the authority to investigate individual institutions under existing civil rights law. The injunction limits the broad data collection mandate — it does not limit the department's ability to respond to specific complaints.

For students currently in the application process, our guides on demonstrated interest and college application tips reflect the actual practices that matter at selective schools — independent of where this legal dispute ultimately lands.

For context on recent Ivy League test requirements and admissions trends, and the Ivy Day 2026 acceptance rate results, those pieces cover what actually changed at selective schools this cycle.

Footnotes

  1. Higher Ed Dive. (2026, April). Court blocks Education Department's data demands for 17 states' colleges. https://www.highereddive.com/news/court-blocks-education-departments-data-demands-for-17-states-colleges/816766/ ↩ ↩2

  2. WBUR News. (2026, April 4). Judge halts Trump effort requiring colleges to show they aren't considering race in admissions. https://www.wbur.org/news/2026/04/04/judge-halts-trump-effort-requiring-colleges-to-show-they-arent-considering-race-in-admissions ↩