The Court Prohibited the Trump Administration from Requesting Racial Data from Universities

Boston, USA – A federal court blocked the attempt of the administration of Donald Trump to compel public universities of 17 states to transfer large-scale data regarding the racial affiliation of students.

The U.S. District Judge in Boston, F. Dennis Saylor IV, granted the motion of the Democratic Attorneys General of 17 states and issued a preliminary injunction (Preliminary Injunction) against the new requirement of the Department of Education.

The Essence of the Dispute and the Arguments of the Parties

The objective of the administration was to monitor the extent to which universities comply with the recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States (which restricted the so-called “affirmative discrimination,” namely Affirmative Action, and prohibited the consideration of race in admissions). For this purpose, the Department of Education developed a new, mandatory survey.

• Position of the Judge: The judge shared the argument of the plaintiff states and noted that the process of introducing the new rules for data collection was “hasty” and that proper communication with universities did not take place.

• Argument of the States: The hastily prepared and extensive survey increases the risk of technical and substantive errors. As a result of such errors, universities may be subjected to severe financial penalties or deprived of federal funding.

Analysis of the Lawyers of Kh & Partners

The given decision is a classic example of how the judiciary balances the excessive power of administrative bodies.

According to the assessment of our experts:

1. Violation of Administrative Procedures: Federal agencies do not have the authority to impose new, burdensome regulations without appropriate review and consultations. The agency must ensure a reasonable period (Notice and Comment Period) so that interested parties may evaluate the new rules. The judge’s decision precisely protects this procedural standard.
2. Proportionality of Risks: The concerns of universities are entirely legitimate. When it concerns such a sensitive issue as racial data, the collection of information through an unrefined system creates both legal and reputational risks for educational institutions.
3. Enforcement of the Supreme Court Decision: Although the Supreme Court has indeed altered the rules of admissions, the executive authority is obliged to conduct monitoring of the enforcement of this decision through lawful, non-coercive, and consistent methods.

Conclusion of Kh & Partners: “The legitimate interest of the government – to enforce the decision of the Supreme Court – does not justify the disregard of procedural norms. This preliminary injunction provides universities with an opportunity to breathe and indicates to the administration that bureaucratic pressure is incompatible with the rule of law. This constitutes an important precedent for the protection of the autonomy of public institutions and administrative justice.”

Why Do Clients Trust Us?

▪️ 33+ years of experience in the legal field
▪️ 160+ lawyers in a global network
▪️ 2000+ business clients and satisfied customers
▪️ 96% success rate and 100+ acquittals
▪️ ISO standards and the highest quality of service
▪️ Insured legal services

🌍 International Reach — our geography covers countries: Georgia, USA, France, Spain, Ukraine, Turkey, China, South Korea, and others.

Our Philosophy: Confidence, Reliability, and Victory!

📞 +995 595 17 17 41
✉️ info@khlaws.com
📍 Tbilisi, Georgia