In a significant escalation of tensions between Democratic-led states and the Trump administration over higher education policies, attorneys general from 17 states have filed a federal lawsuit challenging a new Department of Education (DoE) mandate on race data reporting in college admissions. Filed on March 11, 2026, in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, the suit targets the "Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement" (ACTS) to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), a longstanding federal data collection mechanism for institutions participating in federal student aid programs. This policy, directed by Education Secretary Linda McMahon, requires colleges and universities to submit detailed, disaggregated data on applicants, admits, and enrollees by race, sex, test scores, GPAs, family income, and more—retroactive for seven years. The states argue it's unlawful, overly burdensome, and a partisan ploy disguised as transparency.
Origins of the Controversial Policy
The roots trace back to August 7, 2025, when President Trump issued a presidential memorandum titled "Ensuring Transparency in Higher Education Admissions." This directive instructed Secretary McMahon to overhaul IPEDS via the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to monitor compliance with the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard. That landmark decision prohibited race-conscious admissions under the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, though it permitted applicants to discuss race's personal impact in essays.
The DoE announced the ACTS survey that day, aiming to reveal if schools use 'proxies' like diversity statements for racial preferences. A request for comments followed on August 15, closing October 14 amid 3,462 responses. OMB approved it December 18, 2025, with submissions due March 18, 2026, for many schools—leaving scant preparation time. Proponents see it as vital for merit-based admissions; critics decry it as overreach.
Exactly What Data Must Colleges Report?
Under ACTS, nearly all Title IV-eligible four-year institutions (those offering federal aid) must report granular data for undergraduate and select graduate/professional programs. This includes counts of applicants, admits, and enrollees disaggregated by:
- Race/ethnicity and sex
- Admission test score quintiles (e.g., SAT/ACT)
- High school GPA quintiles
- Family income ranges and Pell Grant eligibility
- Parental education levels
- Admission type (early decision/action, regular)
Additional metrics cover average GPAs/test scores, financial aid amounts by category (merit/need-based), cost of attendance, graduation rates, and final GPAs—all retroactive from 2019-20 to 2025-26. NCES plans audits for accuracy. For context, prior IPEDS focused on enrolled students; this expands to full pipelines, unprecedented in scope.
The 17 Plaintiff States and Their Leaders
The coalition comprises: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai’i, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts (lead), Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. Key AGs include Massachusetts' Andrea Joy Campbell, New York's Letitia James, and Washington's Nick Brown. These states host major public systems like SUNY/CUNY (NY), UC (CA), and UW (WA), facing direct compliance pressures.
"This is a witch hunt targeting DEI," James stated, vowing to protect students and institutions.
Core Legal Arguments in the Complaint
The suit invokes the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), claiming ACTS is arbitrary/capricious, exceeds authority, and skips required procedures. Key points:
- Contrary to Law: NCES/IES statutes mandate neutral statistics, not enforcement (20 U.S.C. §§ 9511, 9541). IPEDS isn't for policing SFFA.
- Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Violations: No full notice/comment (survey unpublished initially), burdens unminimized (retroactive data many lack), incompatible with systems.
- Arbitrary/Capricious: Ignores comments, reliance interests, alternatives like piloting; rushed despite RIFs (reductions in force).
Sought relief: vacate/block implementation, enjoin penalties.
Read the full complaint (PDF)Trump Administration's Rationale and Response
The DoE frames ACTS as transparency post-SFFA, citing 'rampant proxies' like essays for discrimination. Settlements with Brown/Columbia required similar data, restoring funding. Non-compliance risks Title IV aid loss/fines. No formal response yet, but prior comments dismissed burdens as exaggerated.
Burden on Higher Education Institutions
Colleges decry the load: DoE estimates 250+ hours initially per school (40 annually after), totaling 740,000 hours nationally—more than all other IPEDS components combined. Retroactive demands hit hardest; many lack historical applicant data by quintiles. Groups like ACE, AAU warn of diverted resources amid budgets strained by enrollment cliffs. Community colleges via AACC highlighted inaccuracies. For faculty and admins, this means overtime; explore higher ed admin jobs for stability.
Privacy Risks Highlighted by Critics
Disaggregation creates 'small cells' (e.g., Black females in engineering with specific GPA/test/income), potentially identifying students—violating FERPA, state laws, no privacy impact assessment (E-Gov Act). Public release via FOIA looms. IHEP warns against misuse.
Admissions Landscape Post-SFFA
Since 2023, data shows nuanced shifts: Black/Hispanic drops at elites (MIT -5%, Amherst down), but flagships saw minority gains overall. High-grad-rate schools (-1.6% Black/Hispanic). Schools pivot to income, top-percent plans (e.g., UC, MI). ACTS aims to probe disparities, e.g., if URMs (underrepresented minorities) admitted with lower scores.
Stakeholder Perspectives
Higher ed associations (ACE, AAU) blast burdens/privacy; conservatives cheer transparency. X buzz: #17AGsLawsuit trends with partisan divides. Students worry privacy; profs fear audits. Balanced views: data could aid equity if responsible.
DoE Press ReleasePotential Outcomes and Future Outlook
Court could stay deadlines (March 18 looms), vacate ACTS. If upheld, audits/enforcement rise; loss risks aid cuts. Broader: signals Trump anti-DEI push, more probes (50+ unis under investigation). Colleges adapt via holistic reviews. For careers, academic CV tips amid scrutiny. Stay informed via Rate My Professor.
As this unfolds, higher ed leaders balance compliance, innovation. Explore higher ed jobs, university jobs, or career advice at AcademicJobs.com. What are your thoughts? Share below.
