Biden-Appointed Judge Dismisses DOJ Harvard Data Suit on Procedural Grounds

The ruling turned solely on administrative procedure. Joun held that a deadline and threat to sue did not satisfy the requirement to pursue voluntary compliance when extensive applicant-level records were demanded. The complaint alleged Harvard had slow-walked production after the 2023 Students for Fair Admissions decision, yet the court left the underlying data request unresolved and dismissed without prejudice.

Post-SFFA enforcement has exposed a structural gap. The Supreme Court barred explicit race considerations under the 14th Amendment and Title VI, but verification requires granular admissions files that universities treat as proprietary. Harvard's production stopped at May 2025; the DOJ viewed continued withholding as evidence of ongoing noncompliance. Both sides operate under clear incentives: the government must demonstrate enforcement credibility, while Harvard minimizes exposure of internal scoring that could support new litigation.

The next phase centers on whether the Justice and Education departments restart the process with proper notices. Refiling is feasible within existing statutory timelines, yet each extension shifts leverage. Primary records show the administration's February complaint framed data access as a condition of federal funding; Harvard's statements emphasize compliance with the Supreme Court holding while defending institutional autonomy over records.