Federal Judge Halts Trump’s ‘Rushed and Chaotic’ College Race Data Collection in Major Blow to Administration

A federal judge in Boston has slammed the brakes on the Trump administration’s controversial effort to force colleges and universities to prove they are not considering race in admissions, ruling that the sweeping data demand was rolled out in a “rushed and chaotic” manner that violated basic procedural requirements.

U.S. District Court Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV granted a preliminary injunction on Friday, blocking the administration from collecting detailed race-based admissions data from a coalition of 17 Democratic-led states that sued earlier this month. While the judge acknowledged the federal government likely has the legal authority to collect such data, he found the specific implementation fatally flawed.

“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,” Saylor wrote, referring to the National Center for Education Statistics. The NCES had been tasked with gathering the new data, which includes the race and sex of applicants, admitted students, and enrolled students—retroactively for the past seven years.

The Origins of the Data Demand

President Donald Trump ordered the data collection in August 2025 after expressing concerns that colleges and universities were using personal statements, essay prompts, and other proxies to consider race in admissions—a practice he views as illegal discrimination following the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling that struck down affirmative action.

That landmark Supreme Court decision, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, ended the use of race-conscious admissions but explicitly allowed colleges to consider how race has shaped an applicant’s life if the student voluntarily shares that information in essays or personal statements. The Trump administration has argued that this exception has become a loophole that schools are exploiting to continue de facto racial preferences.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon has defended the data collection as a necessary transparency measure, arguing that taxpayers deserve to know how federal funds are being spent at institutions receiving federal funding. The Education Department has said the data would help identify schools that are secretly violating the Supreme Court ruling.

The States’ Legal Challenge

The lawsuit was filed by a coalition of 17 Democratic state attorneys general, who argued that the data collection violates student privacy, imposes impossible burdens on universities, and appears designed to launch baseless investigations rather than gather neutral statistics.

“The data has been sought in such a hasty and irresponsible way that it will create problems for universities,” Michelle Pascucci, an attorney for the plaintiffs, told the court. She added that the effort seemed aimed at uncovering unlawful practices rather than conducting legitimate research.

The states also argued that universities were not given enough time to comply. The original deadline was March 18, 2026—just 120 days after the order was issued. Saylor agreed, noting that the compressed timeline prevented the NCES from engaging in the required notice-and-comment process that allows affected institutions to raise concerns before new data requirements take effect.

What the Data Would Have Required

Had the order remained in effect, the NCES would have collected granular data from every college and university receiving federal financial aid under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965. Schools would have been required to report:

• The race and sex of every applicant, admitted student, and enrolled student

• Retroactive data covering the past seven academic years

• Data disaggregated by specific racial and ethnic categories

The Education Department warned that failure to submit “timely, complete and accurate data” could result in action under Title IV—potentially jeopardizing access to federal student financial aid for entire institutions.

Parallel Actions Against Harvard

The data collection effort is not the administration’s only front in its war on race-conscious admissions. The Trump administration has separately sued Harvard University, demanding admissions records to ensure the school has stopped using affirmative action. Harvard has maintained that it is fully compliant with the Supreme Court ruling and has been responding to government requests.

On Monday, the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights gave Harvard 20 days to comply with the data requests or face referral to the Justice Department. The outcome of that dispute could set the stage for a broader legal battle over how far the government can go in policing compliance with the 2023 ruling.

Parallels to Brown and Columbia Settlements

The administration’s approach mirrors settlement agreements it recently negotiated with Brown University and Columbia University. Those agreements restored the schools’ federal research funding in exchange for the universities providing detailed data on the race, GPA, and test scores of applicants, admitted students, and enrolled students. Both schools also agreed to public audits and the public release of admissions statistics.

Critics argue those settlements were coerced, with the administration holding research funding hostage to extract concessions. Supporters say the agreements represent a model for transparency that should apply to all federally funded institutions.

What This Means for Colleges and Students

For now, the preliminary injunction applies only to public universities in the 17 plaintiff states. However, legal experts expect the ruling to have ripple effects nationwide, as other institutions may refuse to comply pending the outcome of the litigation—or as the administration considers whether to appeal.

The decision represents a significant setback for the Trump administration’s broader effort to police college admissions for racial considerations. With the data collection halted, the Education Department loses its primary tool for identifying schools that may be violating the Supreme Court ruling. The NCES cannot proceed with its planned analysis, and Education Secretary McMahon cannot take enforcement action against non-compliant schools—at least for now.

The case is likely to proceed to a full hearing on the merits, where Saylor will decide whether to make the injunction permanent. Either side could appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, and given the national importance of the issue, the Supreme Court may eventually have the final word.

The Political Context

The ruling lands in the middle of an ongoing government shutdown fight, adding another layer of complexity to the administration’s agenda. Trump has made opposition to affirmative action a cornerstone of his higher education policy, arguing that race-based considerations in admissions discriminate against white and Asian American applicants.

Democrats have accused the administration of waging a “war on diversity” and using data collection as a pretext to intimidate universities into abandoning legitimate efforts to recruit underrepresented students. The 17 states that sued include California, New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts—all led by Democratic attorneys general who have positioned themselves as bulwarks against Trump’s education agenda.

For now, colleges can breathe a sigh of relief. The immediate deadline has passed, the data collection is on hold, and the NCES must return to the drawing board. But the underlying legal question—how far the government can go to enforce the Supreme Court’s affirmative action ban—remains very much alive.

Follow and subscribe for push notifications on the latest legal and political developments.

Writer: Sam Michael