Lead: On March 26, 2026, the U.S. Justice Department opened formal probes into how race is considered in admissions at the medical schools of Stanford University, Ohio State University and the University of California, San Diego. The department’s Civil Rights Division, led by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, requested applicant-level records and admissions-review materials dating back to the cohort that matriculated in 2019. The move intensifies an administration-wide effort to scrutinize higher-education admissions practices following the 2023 Supreme Court decision that barred race-based affirmative action in college admissions. Officials from the three institutions say they are reviewing the requests and assert they comply with applicable laws.
Key Takeaways
- The Justice Department opened investigations on March 26, 2026, focusing on Stanford, Ohio State and UC San Diego medical schools.
- DOJ requested applicant-level admissions data, standardized test scores and any materials about race or ethnicity for applicants beginning with the incoming class of 2019.
- Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general for civil rights, announced the probes publicly on X.
- The probes follow a wider Trump administration campaign to challenge higher-education practices after the 2023 Supreme Court ruling banning affirmative action.
- Ohio State, UC San Diego and Stanford say they are reviewing the notices and reaffirm commitment to non-discrimination under federal and state law.
- The New York Times first reported the investigations; DOJ requests include per-applicant admissions decisions and any analyses of outcomes by race.
- A separate legal challenge from 17 Democratic state attorneys general disputes a related federal policy requiring institutions to collect data showing they do not consider race in admissions.
Background
Since taking executive action on higher education, the Trump administration has escalated scrutiny of how colleges and universities account for race when selecting applicants. After the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling that prohibited race-based affirmative action, the administration has argued some institutions use essays, legacy status or other proxies to achieve similar racial outcomes — a claim it considers potentially unlawful.
Federal civil-rights enforcement of admissions policies has historical precedent, but large-scale, applicant-level investigations across multiple selective programs mark a new phase. The department’s requirement for detailed applicant records — including standardized test scores and inferred demographic data — reflects an intent to assess practices at the case-by-case level rather than solely relying on aggregate statistics.
Main Event
On March 26, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division sent letters to the three schools requesting wide-ranging admissions records. The letters ask for applicant-level data and any internal reviews of admissions trends by race or ethnicity, covering candidates who entered medical training beginning with the 2019 cohort. The requests explicitly mention materials that reflect the “use or lack of use of race” in evaluating applicants.
Harmeet Dhillon announced the department’s actions on X, describing the investigations as part of the division’s mandate to enforce federal civil-rights laws. The department also provided a five-page appendix listing the categories of records sought, including test scores, demographic information collected or inferred by the institutions and per-applicant admissions outcomes.
Spokespeople for the three schools said they were examining the letters. Ohio State emphasized compliance with state and federal rules and said it would respond appropriately; UC San Diego reiterated a commitment to fair admissions consistent with anti-discrimination law; Stanford’s medical school said it prohibits unlawful discrimination and was reviewing the notice.
It remains unclear from the public letters why those particular medical schools were selected for investigation. DOJ did not immediately provide additional public explanation beyond the records request, and the institutions have not disclosed the department’s next procedural steps.
Analysis & Implications
The investigations signal an intensification of federal oversight focused on professional schools, not only undergraduate programs. By seeking applicant-level data back to 2019, investigators can analyze patterns over multiple admission cycles and test whether policies or informal practices produced racially disparate outcomes. That level of granularity could identify lawful individualized review, permissible consideration of life experiences influenced by race, or impermissible uses of race as a selection factor.
Legally, the probes sit at the intersection of the 2023 Supreme Court ruling and existing civil-rights statutes. The court allowed colleges to consider how race shaped applicants’ life experiences if applicants volunteer that context; the DOJ’s scrutiny appears aimed at distinguishing permitted contextual consideration from covert, outcome-driven race preferences. The department’s approach — requesting essays, files and inferred-race data — suggests investigators will look for systematic patterns rather than isolated decisions.
Politically, the investigations are likely to deepen partisan conflict over higher education. Supporters of the administration argue heightened enforcement restores colorblind application of the law; critics view the moves as an effort to curb diversity programs and to pressure universities perceived as ideologically out of step with the administration. Lawsuits already pending — including one by 17 Democratic state attorneys general challenging a federal data-collection policy — set the stage for parallel legal battles.
Practically, institutions will face compliance burdens and potential reputational costs. Producing applicant-level files can be administratively intensive and raises privacy considerations, particularly for medical schools that hold sensitive applicant information. Pending the investigations’ findings, schools could face legal remedies, changes to admissions processes, or negotiated agreements with regulators.
Comparison & Data
| Medical School | Data Range Requested | Types of Records |
|---|---|---|
| Stanford School of Medicine | Matriculants starting 2019 onward | Applicant-level decisions, test scores, demographic data, essays |
| Ohio State University — Medical College | Matriculants starting 2019 onward | Applicant-level decisions, test scores, demographic data, internal reviews |
| UC San Diego — School of Medicine | Matriculants starting 2019 onward | Applicant-level decisions, test scores, demographic data, admissions analyses |
The table above summarizes the schools named in DOJ letters and the categories of records acknowledged in the department’s five-page list. Requesting applicant-level files across multiple cycles gives investigators statistical power to detect patterns but also increases the volume of personally identifiable information that institutions must disclose under federal demand.
Reactions & Quotes
Institutional responses emphasized legal compliance and review of the notices before making broader statements. Each university framed its immediate posture as cooperative and focused on adherence to anti-discrimination obligations.
“We are reviewing the notice and will respond appropriately; Ohio State complies with applicable regulations and rulings on admissions,”
Ohio State spokesperson Benjamin Johnson
The school’s comment underscores an intent to engage with DOJ requests without conceding wrongdoing and to rely on established legal standards for admissions.
“UC San Diego is committed to fair processes in all of our programs and activities, including admissions, consistent with federal and state anti-discrimination laws,”
UC San Diego statement
UC San Diego’s statement frames the university’s review through the lens of existing anti-discrimination obligations and signals cooperation while preserving institutional discretion over admissions policies.
“Stanford School of Medicine prohibits unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, color, national or ethnic origin,”
Stanford School of Medicine spokesperson Cecilia Arradaza
Stanford’s brief public comment reiterates formal nondiscrimination commitments as it assesses the department’s request.
Unconfirmed
- Why these three medical schools were selected has not been publicly explained by DOJ; the department has not disclosed any specific complaints prompting the probes.
- Allegations that essays or other nonexplicit markers are being systematically used as proxies for race have been asserted by some administration officials but have not been independently verified in the public record.
Bottom Line
The Justice Department’s investigations of Stanford, Ohio State and UC San Diego mark a concrete escalation in federal scrutiny of professional-school admissions practices. By requesting per-applicant records dating to the 2019 matriculation cohort, investigators are positioning themselves to analyze multi-year patterns rather than single-year anomalies.
Outcomes from these probes could reshape how medical schools document decision-making, use applicant essays and track admissions outcomes by demographic groups. They also risk prompting additional litigation and heightening institutional caution around diversity-focused recruitment and admissions policies. For students, faculty and administrators, the near-term priority will be managing regulatory compliance while public debate continues over the permissible role of race in higher education.