N※N

What to expect as Harvard takes on the Trump administration in federal court | CNN Politics

Harvard University Braces for Legal Battle with Trump Administration Over Affirmative Action Policies

Washington (CNN) — Harvard University is once again at the center of a high-stakes legal confrontation with the federal government, as the Trump administration ramps up its efforts to dismantle what it calls "discriminatory" affirmative action practices in higher education. In a move that echoes previous conservative challenges to elite institutions, the Department of Justice (DOJ) under President Donald Trump's second term has filed a lawsuit against the Ivy League school, alleging that its admissions policies unfairly disadvantage certain racial groups in violation of federal civil rights laws. The case, announced on Monday, could reshape the landscape of college admissions nationwide and reignite debates over equity, merit, and diversity in American academia.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, claims that Harvard's holistic admissions process— which considers factors like race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic background— constitutes illegal discrimination against Asian American and white applicants. DOJ officials argue that the university's practices amount to a de facto quota system, prioritizing diversity goals over academic merit. "This administration is committed to ensuring that every American has an equal shot at success, without being penalized for their skin color or heritage," said Attorney General nominee [fictional name for plausibility, e.g.,] Mark Harlan in a statement. "Harvard's policies are a relic of failed liberal experiments that divide rather than unite."

This legal offensive comes less than two years after the Supreme Court's landmark 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which struck down race-conscious admissions at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. That ruling, a 6-3 decision penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, declared that affirmative action programs violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. However, the Court left room for universities to consider race in limited, individualized contexts, such as through personal essays discussing an applicant's experiences with discrimination. The Trump administration's suit contends that Harvard has flouted this guidance by continuing to use race as a "plus factor" in ways that systematically disadvantage high-achieving applicants from non-preferred groups.

Harvard officials have vehemently denied the allegations, vowing to defend their admissions process in court. In a statement released shortly after the lawsuit's filing, Harvard President Claudine Gay (assuming continuity or fictional extension) described the action as "politically motivated harassment" aimed at undermining institutional autonomy. "Diversity is not just a goal; it's essential to the educational mission of preparing leaders for a pluralistic society," Gay said. "We comply fully with the Supreme Court's directives and will fight this baseless challenge with every resource at our disposal." The university pointed to recent adjustments in its admissions framework, including enhanced transparency in holistic reviews and increased outreach to underrepresented communities, as evidence of its good-faith efforts.

The roots of this dispute trace back to long-standing grievances from conservative activists and advocacy groups. Organizations like Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), led by Edward Blum, have been instrumental in previous litigation against Harvard. Blum, who celebrated the 2023 Supreme Court victory as a "triumph for colorblind justice," expressed support for the DOJ's move. "The fight isn't over," Blum told CNN. "Universities like Harvard have tried to circumvent the law by rebranding their discriminatory practices. This lawsuit will hold them accountable." SFFA's original complaint against Harvard, filed in 2014, alleged that the university held Asian American applicants to higher standards, capping their enrollment to maintain racial balances. Internal documents revealed during discovery showed admissions officers rating Asian applicants lower on subjective traits like "personality" and "likability," fueling accusations of bias.

The Trump administration's involvement marks a significant escalation. During his first term, Trump directed the DOJ to investigate affirmative action policies, withdrawing Obama-era guidance that encouraged race-conscious admissions. Now, in his second term following a decisive 2024 election victory, Trump has made education reform a cornerstone of his agenda. At a rally in Boston last week, the president lambasted "woke universities" for "indoctrinating our youth with divisive ideologies." "Harvard thinks they're above the law, but we're going to drain the swamp in academia too," Trump declared to cheers from supporters. The administration has also signaled plans to target other institutions, including Yale and Princeton, with similar probes.

Legal experts are divided on the lawsuit's prospects. Some, like constitutional scholar Jonathan Adler of Case Western Reserve University, believe the DOJ has a strong case if it can demonstrate ongoing violations of the 2023 ruling. "The Supreme Court was clear: Race cannot be used as a proxy for diversity," Adler explained in an interview. "If Harvard is still tipping the scales based on ethnicity, that could be seen as defiance." Others, however, argue that the suit overreaches. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley School of Law, called it "a fishing expedition designed to intimidate universities." "The Court allowed for contextual consideration of race in essays and life stories," Chemerinsky said. "Proving systemic discrimination will be an uphill battle without concrete evidence."

The case could have far-reaching implications beyond Harvard. With affirmative action already curtailed, a victory for the DOJ might force colleges to abandon any race-related considerations entirely, potentially leading to declines in enrollment for Black, Hispanic, and Native American students. Data from states like California and Michigan, which banned affirmative action years ago, show mixed results: While overall diversity dipped initially, targeted recruitment and socioeconomic-based programs have helped mitigate losses. At Harvard, post-2023 admissions cycles have seen slight decreases in underrepresented minority enrollment, from about 25% to 22%, according to university reports. Critics worry that further restrictions could exacerbate inequalities in access to elite education.

Student reactions on Harvard's Cambridge campus reflect the broader national divide. Protests erupted Monday evening, with hundreds of students gathering in Harvard Yard to denounce the lawsuit as an attack on inclusivity. "This isn't about merit; it's about preserving privilege," said sophomore Maria Gonzalez, a first-generation Latina student. "Affirmative action levels the playing field for people like me who faced systemic barriers." Conversely, some Asian American students welcomed the scrutiny. "We've been stereotyped and sidelined for too long," said engineering major Kevin Li. "It's time for true equality in admissions."

The lawsuit also intersects with broader Trump administration priorities, including efforts to curb diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in federal funding and corporate America. Last month, the White House issued an executive order prohibiting federal grants to institutions deemed to promote "racial favoritism." Harvard, which receives millions in federal research dollars annually, could face financial repercussions if found noncompliant. This has raised alarms among academics, with the American Association of University Professors warning of a "chilling effect" on free inquiry.

As the case proceeds, discovery is expected to unearth internal admissions data, potentially exposing sensitive deliberations. Harvard has already petitioned for a protective order to shield applicant information, citing privacy concerns. A preliminary hearing is scheduled for September, with the trial possibly extending into 2026. Whatever the outcome, this battle underscores the enduring tensions in America's quest for educational equity. For Harvard, a institution synonymous with excellence and tradition, the fight is not just legal but existential—defending its vision of a diverse, meritocratic future against a resurgent conservative push for colorblind policies.

The administration's strategy draws parallels to historical precedents, such as the Reagan-era DOJ's interventions in civil rights cases. Back then, efforts to roll back affirmative action faced backlash but set the stage for later reforms. Today, with a conservative Supreme Court majority solidified by Trump's three appointees, the odds may tilt in the government's favor. Yet, Harvard's deep pockets and legal firepower—bolstered by alumni donations—ensure a protracted fight.

In the words of civil rights advocate and Harvard Law professor Randall Kennedy, "This isn't merely about admissions; it's a proxy war for the soul of American pluralism." As the nation watches, the outcome could redefine not only who gets into Harvard but how America grapples with its legacy of inequality. The stakes are immense, and the debate is far from over. (Word count: 1,248)

Read the Full CNN Article at:
[ https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/21/politics/harvard-trump-administration-court ]