In a significant development for higher education, a federal judge has issued rulings blocking the U.S. Department of Education's demands for extensive data on college applicants from numerous public and private institutions. This action stems from ongoing legal challenges to the Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement, known as the ACTS survey, which sought detailed breakdowns of admissions metrics by race, sex, and other factors. The decisions highlight tensions between federal oversight of civil rights compliance and institutional burdens in data reporting.

The rulings come amid efforts to monitor adherence to the Supreme Court's 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and UNC, which ended race-conscious admissions practices. Colleges across the country faced pressure to submit seven years of granular data, raising questions about feasibility, privacy, and administrative capacity within a rapidly changing federal landscape.

Background: The Origins of the ACTS Survey

The ACTS survey emerged from a presidential directive issued in August 2025 by President Donald Trump, tasking the Department of Education with collecting comprehensive admissions data within 120 days. Administered through the National Center for Education Statistics as a supplement to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, or IPEDS, the survey targeted selective four-year colleges and universities.

Institutions were required to report disaggregated data on applicants, admitted students, and enrollees. This included high school grade point average in quintiles, standardized test scores such as SAT or ACT, family income levels, Pell Grant eligibility, parental education attainment, and application timing—early decision versus regular decision. All metrics had to be cross-tabulated by race or ethnicity categories like Asian, Black, Hispanic, White, and others, as well as by sex. Covering undergraduate and graduate programs from the 2019-20 through 2025-26 academic years, the demands represented a massive expansion over prior IPEDS collections.

The Department of Education justified the survey as essential for identifying patterns of discrimination and promoting transparency in admissions. Secretary Linda McMahon emphasized restoring meritocracy, stating that the data would empower consumers and enforce civil rights laws. However, the mid-December 2025 launch, with an initial March 18, 2026 deadline, caught many institutions unprepared, especially as the survey template underwent significant revisions in January and February 2026.

The 17-State Lawsuit and Initial Court Actions

In early March 2026, attorneys general from 17 Democratic-led states—California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin—filed suit in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts. They argued the process violated the Administrative Procedure Act due to its rushed nature and lack of meaningful public input.

Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV, a George W. Bush appointee, granted temporary restraining orders, first extending the deadline to March 25 and then to April 6. On April 3, 2026, he issued a preliminary injunction specifically for public colleges in those 17 states, affecting hundreds of institutions serving nearly 3 million students. The order paused enforcement, including potential fines or funding cuts, while the case proceeds.

Expansion of the Injunction to Private Colleges

Building on the initial ruling, higher education associations and private nonprofits sought to intervene. On April 27, 2026, Judge Saylor extended the injunction to cover members of six associations: the Association of American Universities (69 members), Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts (58 members), Connecticut Conference of Independent Colleges (14), Maine Independent Colleges Association (11), North Carolina Independent Colleges and Universities (36), and Oregon Alliance of Independent Colleges and Universities (11). Six specific private colleges—Barnard, Bryn Mawr, Middlebury, Sarah Lawrence, Swarthmore, and Vassar—were also protected.

This expansion shields approximately 178 additional institutions, including elite privates like Harvard University, Columbia, and Caltech. Some had already submitted partial data, but the ruling prevents penalties regardless. The judge cited irreparable harm from compliance burdens and enforcement risks.

Judge Saylor's Key Reasoning

Judge Saylor affirmed the Department's general authority to collect such data for educational decision-making and discrimination detection. However, he lambasted the implementation as 'rushed and chaotic,' epitomizing arbitrary and capricious action under the APA. Critical issues included:

• Failure to adequately address public comments on feasibility and privacy during the notice-and-comment period.
• A truncated timeline unexplained by the President, Secretary, or agency.
• Drastic staff reductions at NCES—from about 100 to as few as three employees—amid plans to dismantle the Department, undermining data handling, validation, and analysis capabilities.

Privacy concerns, including disclosure risks for sensitive student data, remain under review but did not form the injunction's basis yet. The judge noted the agency's silence on how a 'hollowed-out' NCES could manage the workload.

Burden on Higher Education Institutions

Compiling seven years of disaggregated data proved extraordinarily challenging. Many colleges lack systems to retroactively match applicant demographics with outcomes at this granularity. For example, legacy status, athletic recruitment, and donor preferences—now under scrutiny in some states—add layers of complexity not previously tracked federally.

Selective institutions like those in the Ivy League or liberal arts colleges faced the heaviest load. A mid-sized public university might need to process tens of thousands of records manually, diverting staff from core missions. Costs could run into hundreds of thousands per institution, per estimates from associations like the American Council on Education.

Stakeholder Reactions and Perspectives

Higher education leaders welcomed the relief. Massachusetts AG Andrea Joy Campbell highlighted the 'baseless investigations' risk, while AAU President Barbara Snyder noted the data's potential misuse amid federal restructuring. Civil rights advocates like the ACLU expressed mixed views: supportive of anti-discrimination monitoring but wary of politicization.

The Department of Education has not commented extensively but maintains the survey's legality. Supporters argue transparency benefits applicants, enabling better choices amid shifting demographics post-SFFA. For instance, Black enrollment at selective colleges dipped 2-5% in 2024-25 cycles, per Common App data, fueling debates on merit versus equity.Higher Ed Dive reports on the expanded injunction.

Privacy Risks and Data Security

A core plaintiff concern is student privacy under FERPA, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. Disaggregated data could inadvertently identify individuals in small demographic cells, especially at liberal arts colleges with enrollments under 3,000. NCES promised aggregation thresholds and risk reviews, but skeptics question enforcement given staff cuts.

Experts recommend anonymization protocols and independent audits. Comparable EU GDPR standards offer lessons, requiring explicit consent for sensitive processing. U.S. colleges already navigate state laws like California's CCPA, amplifying compliance headaches.

Broader Context: Admissions After SFFA

The 2023 Supreme Court ruling prohibited using race as a 'plus factor,' prompting holistic reviews emphasizing essays, extracurriculars, and geography. Early data shows resilience: Harvard's Class of 2028 was 15.3% Black, similar to prior years, though top-50 privates saw slight Hispanic gains offset Black declines.

States like Florida and Texas, with bans since 1996 and 1997, provide models—using socioeconomic proxies. Yet, DOE's push reflects skepticism that self-reported compliance suffices without granular federal data.Inside Higher Ed covers the 17-state block.

Future Outlook and Potential Appeals

The lawsuits continue, with hearings on interventions and merits ahead. The Trump administration may appeal to the First Circuit or Supreme Court, testing APA boundaries in education policy. Meanwhile, voluntary IPEDS reporters proceed, but injunctions cover ~20% of Title IV institutions.

Higher ed may pivot to state-level transparency dashboards or third-party audits. Long-term, balanced reforms could standardize reporting without overload, fostering trust. Institutions should review admissions processes now, documenting race-neutral criteria amid uncertainty.

For college administrators and faculty, this saga underscores navigating federal volatility. Proactive data governance—investing in CRM systems like Slate or Technolutions—positions campuses for future mandates. Applicants benefit from clearer merit signals, potentially reshaping recruitment.

Photo by Egor Komarov on Unsplash