US Admissions Data Delays: More Colleges Granted Extension on New Reporting Requirements

In a significant development for U.S. higher education institutions, a federal judge has granted additional time to more colleges and universities to comply with new federal reporting requirements on admissions data. U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV recently extended the deadline for members of the Association of American Universities (AAU) and the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts (AICUM) until April 14, 2026. This move provides temporary relief amid ongoing legal challenges to the U.S. Department of Education's (ED) Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement (ACTS), a sweeping new data collection effort designed to monitor compliance with the Supreme Court's 2023 ban on race-conscious admissions.

The ACTS survey represents the largest expansion in the history of the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), a longstanding federal database managed by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). IPEDS has traditionally collected aggregated institutional data to inform policy, research, and consumer choice in higher education. However, ACTS shifts toward more granular, student-level reporting, requiring approximately 2,200 selective four-year colleges and universities—both public and private—to submit detailed information on applicants, admits, and enrollees dating back seven years, from the 2019-2020 academic year through the present.

🔍 What Does the ACTS Survey Require?

The core of ACTS mandates disaggregated data broken down by key demographics and academic metrics. Institutions must report on:

• Race and ethnicity: Categories including Asian, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, Native American or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, White, and two or more races, following federal standards.
• Sex: Male, female, and non-binary/other.
• Test scores: SAT and ACT scores for those who submitted them, handling multiple submissions without double-counting students.
• High school GPA: Unweighted GPAs, with institutions responsible for converting weighted scales—a process fraught with variability across high schools.
• Income ranges: Pell Grant eligibility as a proxy, alongside other financial indicators.

Data must cover the full admissions funnel: total applicants, those admitted, and actual enrollees. Submissions occur via a new online aggregator tool or a Python script released in February 2026, allowing student-level uploads that ED processes for analysis. The ED estimates this will take about 200 hours per institution in the first year, though higher education associations argue it could exceed that due to data aggregation from disparate campus systems like CRM software, applicant portals, and registrar databases.

The Rushed Rollout and Initial Deadlines

ACTS originated from a Trump administration directive in August 2025, following the Supreme Court's decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which deemed race-based admissions unconstitutional. The final rule was published in December 2025, with data collection opening December 18, 2025, and an initial deadline of March 18, 2026. This compressed timeline—far shorter than the typical one-year lead for IPEDS changes—sparked immediate backlash.

In February 2026, the Association for Institutional Research (AIR) surveyed its members, finding 87% needed more time; 74% reported moderate to major challenges interpreting guidance. ED responded with conditional extensions to April 8 for qualifying institutions, but confusion persisted as guidance evolved, including mid-process template revisions for income and sex reporting.

Lawsuits Ignite: The 17-State Challenge

On March 11, 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 Boston. They alleged ACTS violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by bypassing public notice-and-comment requirements, imposing undue burdens, and repurposing IPEDS—a statistical tool—into an enforcement mechanism for potential investigations.

Judge Saylor issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on March 13, extending the deadline to March 25 for public institutions in those states. After a hearing on March 25, he further extended it to April 6, citing a "sufficiently strong" likelihood of plaintiff success. This applies only to public colleges in the suing states, leaving private institutions and out-of-state publics to earlier deadlines like March 31.

Learn more about the initial court extension for state publics.

More Colleges Join the Fray: AAU and AICUM Extensions

The latest ruling on March 31 expanded relief to AAU's 69 members—leading research universities like Harvard, Stanford, and the University of Michigan—and AICUM's 58 Massachusetts private nonprofits, including Amherst College and Boston University. Their April 14 deadline aligns with a pivotal April 13 hearing on whether they can intervene in the lawsuit and secure a preliminary injunction.

These groups argue ACTS threatens institutional autonomy and data privacy, echoing state concerns. AAU's court filing highlighted the impracticality of retrospective data pulls amid varying record-keeping practices. Details from the judge's order underscore the need for orderly resolution.

Compliance Challenges: Burden, Technical Hurdles, and Data Quality

Higher education leaders face multifaceted obstacles. Many institutions store admissions data across siloed systems: undergraduate data in central offices, graduate in departments. Unweighting GPAs requires custom algorithms, as high schools vary wildly—some report weighted 4.5 scales, others unweighted 4.0.

Technical glitches plague submissions: the Python script arrived late, aggregator processing takes days per year of data, and contractor reviews span weeks. Evolving guidance on deferrals, early departures, and multiple tests has led to inconsistent reporting. A Postsecondary Data Collaborative analysis called ACTS "riddled with problems," predicting unreliable data unfit for enforcement.

Privacy risks loom, as student-level data could reveal individual identities in small demographic cohorts, potentially chilling applications from underrepresented groups.

Stakeholder Perspectives: A Divided Landscape

Department of Education: Defends ACTS as essential for transparency post-SCOTUS, arguing data imperfections don't invalidate its purpose. ED lawyer Brittany Bruns noted, "Statistical analysis does not require perfect data." The goal: detect lingering race preferencing via regression models correlating demographics with admit rates.

States and Associations: Massachusetts AG's Michelle Pascucci decried the "hasty" rollout ensuring "inconsistent information." AIR's Christine Keller urged continued preparation amid uncertainty. ACE and others, in amicus briefs, advocate collaborative processes like prior IPEDS updates.

Institutional Research Offices: AIR's February survey revealed widespread delays; many still validate data. Critics like IHEP highlight political overreach, risking inequities by diverting resources from opportunity programs.

Explore in-depth critiques in this IHEP report.

Real-World Impacts: Case Studies from the Frontlines

At the University of California system—headquartered in plaintiff state California—IR teams scrambled to aggregate data from nine campuses serving 295,000 students. UC Berkeley alone processes 128,000 applications yearly; retrofitting seven years meant hiring temps, costing thousands.

Private elite like Harvard (AAU member) faces scrutiny given its SCOTUS role. Smaller AICUM colleges like Wheaton report similar strains, with limited staff juggling ACTS amid budget cuts.

Broader effects: Delayed IPEDS submissions could skew national rankings, enrollment projections, and federal aid allocations. Enrollment dipped 8.43% since 2010 peaks; added burdens exacerbate financial woes for under-resourced publics.

Implications for Admissions Transparency and Equity

Proponents argue ACTS promotes accountability, empowering students with outcome data akin to Common Data Set expansions. Yet opponents fear it stigmatizes diversity efforts, deterring applicants wary of surveillance. Post-SCOTUS, Black enrollment at selective privates fell 2-5% in class of 2028; ACTS data might quantify shifts but risks misuse in lawsuits.

Long-term, reliable data could inform race-neutral strategies like top-percent plans (used in Texas, Florida). However, rushed collection undermines trust in IPEDS, a cornerstone for 40+ years.

Looking Ahead: Hearings, Potential Blocks, and Alternatives

The April 13 hearing could yield a preliminary injunction halting ACTS nationwide or refine requirements. If upheld, phased implementation with better guidance might emerge. Associations push aggregated reporting over student-level to ease burdens.

For institutions, best practices include legal consultations, data audits, and contingency planning. As higher ed navigates politicized scrutiny, transparency balances enforcement needs with operational realities—ensuring access for all talents.

Stay informed via resources from the American Council on Education.

Photo by Hakim Menikh on Unsplash