Lead: The U.S. Justice Department has opened civil-rights investigations into how race is considered in admissions at three medical schools—Stanford, Ohio State and the University of California, San Diego—announced by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon on X. The probes, disclosed on a Wednesday, request applicant-level records and admissions decisions dating back to the incoming class that began in 2019. The actions escalate the Trump administration’s scrutiny of higher education after the 2023 Supreme Court decision restricting affirmative action in college admissions. University officials say they are reviewing the notices and will respond through appropriate legal and administrative channels.
Key Takeaways
- The Justice Department opened investigations into the medical schools of Stanford University, Ohio State University and the University of California, San Diego, seeking documents on the use or non-use of race in admissions.
- A separate five-page list from the government requests applicant-level admissions data, standardized test scores and information collected or inferred on race and ethnicity, covering applicants back to the class that entered in 2019.
- Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon announced the probes on X; the actions follow earlier federal scrutiny of undergraduate admissions after the 2023 Supreme Court ruling that curtailed affirmative action.
- Ohio State said it is compliant with state and federal admissions rules; UC San Diego and Stanford said they are reviewing the notices and reiterated commitments to non-discrimination.
- A coalition of 17 Democratic state attorneys general has filed a lawsuit challenging a Trump administration policy that requires colleges to collect data showing they are not considering race; a federal judge in Massachusetts is weighing a request to block that demand.
Background
Since the 2023 Supreme Court decision that largely ended race-conscious affirmative action in college admissions, the federal government has increased oversight of how institutions evaluate applicants. The administration has pressed universities to demonstrate compliance with the Court’s limits, arguing that some campuses are using essays or other materials as proxies to consider race. Legal and political fault lines over admissions policies have widened, drawing responses from state officials, civil-rights groups and higher-education leaders.
Historically, affirmative-action litigation has centered on undergraduate admissions at selective colleges; the current probes mark a notable extension into professional schools. Medical schools use a variety of metrics—test scores, coursework, interviews, personal statements and extracurricular records—so the government’s request for applicant-level datasets raises questions about how admissions offices document and justify holistic review. Universities balancing nondiscrimination obligations and holistic assessment practices now face intensified scrutiny and potential litigation.
Main Event
The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division dispatched letters to the three medical schools requesting a broad set of records, including applicant-level admissions decisions, standardized test information and race or ethnicity data reported or inferred by the institutions. According to the notice, the government seeks records covering applicants who entered as part of the class starting in 2019 and subsequent cohorts. The communication to Ohio State explicitly asked for documents related to “the use or lack of use of race” in evaluating applicants.
Harmeet Dhillon, the department’s assistant attorney general for civil rights, publicized the inquiries on X, portraying them as part of enforcement duties to ensure compliance with federal anti-discrimination law and with the Supreme Court’s 2023 guidance. The move follows prior administration actions requiring higher-education institutions to compile and submit data purporting to show they are not factoring race into admissions decisions.
University responses were measured and procedural. Ohio State spokesman Benjamin Johnson said the university was compliant with legal standards and would respond to the letter. UC San Diego said it was reviewing the notice and emphasized its commitment to fair processes consistent with federal and state anti-discrimination laws. Stanford School of Medicine likewise said it was reviewing the request and reiterated a policy prohibiting unlawful discrimination.
Analysis & Implications
The investigations could narrow into how admissions officers document decision rationales when they perform holistic reviews, an area where race-conscious considerations and permissible context can be difficult to disentangle. By seeking applicant-level data, the government may attempt to identify patterns that suggest disparate treatment, though the presence of racial or ethnic data alone does not establish unlawful discrimination. Institutions that rely on narrative information—personal statements, essays, interviews—to assess life experiences face novel scrutiny about whether those materials serve as proxies for race.
Legally, the investigations come against a backdrop in which courts are defining the boundary between lawful contextual consideration of an applicant’s background and impermissible race-based decisionmaking. The 2023 Supreme Court ruling allowed colleges to consider how race has shaped an applicant’s life story if the student offers that information, but it banned race as a factor in admissions formulas. The Justice Department’s inquiries may test how admissions offices operationalize that line.
Politically, the probes heighten tensions between the federal government and higher-education institutions that see holistic review as essential to building diverse professional cohorts. For medical schools, the stakes include classroom composition, clinical training sites and pipeline programs tied to underserved communities. If investigations lead to enforcement actions or litigation, they could trigger broader changes to application practices, documentation standards and institutional risk assessments nationwide.
Comparison & Data
| Institution | Records Requested | Start Year Covered |
|---|---|---|
| Stanford School of Medicine | Applicant-level admissions data, test scores, race/ethnicity information | 2019 |
| Ohio State College of Medicine | Applicant-level admissions data, test scores, race/ethnicity information | 2019 |
| UC San Diego School of Medicine | Applicant-level admissions data, test scores, race/ethnicity information | 2019 |
The government’s request mirrors prior demands aimed at undergraduate campuses but is notable for its uniform time horizon—applicants beginning with the 2019 incoming class. That span covers at least five application cycles, depending on how institutions index classes. Seeking standardized test scores and applicant-level decisions allows statistical analysis of admission outcomes by race and other variables, though causation is legally complex and requires careful inferential work.
Reactions & Quotes
University officials framed their responses around compliance and review, signaling intent to engage with the process while protecting institutional admissions practices.
“We’ve received the attached letter and will respond appropriately.”
Benjamin Johnson, Ohio State spokesperson
UC San Diego reiterated its stated commitments to equity and legal compliance while noting staff were assessing the department’s notice.
“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 (written statement)
Stanford’s School of Medicine highlighted a policy prohibiting unlawful discrimination as it evaluates the inquiry.
“Stanford School of Medicine prohibits unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, color, national or ethnic origin, or any other characteristic protected by applicable law.”
Stanford School of Medicine spokesperson Cecilia Arradaza
Unconfirmed
- It is not yet clear why the Justice Department selected these three medical schools rather than other professional programs; no official rationale has been published.
- Whether the government’s review will expand to additional medical or professional schools remains unannounced and speculative.
- Claims that personal essays are being systematically used as proxies for race have been asserted in political commentary, but comprehensive evidence demonstrating widespread institutional misuse has not been publicly presented.
Bottom Line
The DOJ investigations mark a significant escalation in federal oversight of higher-education admissions practices, extending scrutiny into professional schools that have historically relied on holistic review. By requesting granular, applicant-level data spanning multiple admission cycles, investigators gain the ability to conduct detailed statistical analyses—but such analyses will face legal and interpretive limits when inferring intent or unlawful discrimination.
For universities, the immediate implications are procedural and legal: institutions must review and preserve records, consult counsel and prepare responses while managing public and stakeholder expectations. Longer term, the probes could reshape documentation practices, admissions training and the use of narrative materials in evaluations if they lead to enforcement guidance or court rulings. Observers should watch for further announcements from the Justice Department, responses from the targeted schools, and any related court decisions in the challenge brought by the coalition of 17 Democratic attorneys general.
Sources
- Associated Press (news organization) — original reporting on the Justice Department investigations.
- The New York Times (news organization) — reported the investigations first, according to statements in coverage.
- U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division (official) — office responsible for the inquiries and public statements by the assistant attorney general.
- Supreme Court of the United States (court) — 2023 ruling constrained the use of race in college admissions and provides legal context for the investigations.