Duke Law becomes 3rd professional school hit by DOJ admissions findings

The Duke Law action cements a legal trend with far-reaching implications: the DOJ is methodically dismantling the narrow exception that the Supreme Court left open in 2023. By equating diversity essays and first-generation status with intentional race discrimination, the administration is raising the stakes for every college general counsel. RegTech providers must now help clients document race-neutral processes while legal advisors grapple with whether any holistic factor can survive disparate-impact scrutiny in a conservative enforcement environment.

The Justice Department's findings letter to Duke University School of Law, issued on August 7, 2026, marks a significant escalation in the Trump administration's campaign against what it views as illegal race-based admissions practices in higher education. The department accused Duke Law of circumventing the Supreme Court's 2023 ban on affirmative action by using personal essays, first-generation college student status, and other 'race-neutral' factors as proxies for race, thereby disadvantaging white and Asian applicants. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon's statement that 'Using “diversity” essay questions to identify preferred races for admission is still illegal discrimination based on race' encapsulates the administration's zero-tolerance stance. This action places Duke Law alongside Yale and UCLA medical schools, which received similar findings earlier, and follows a June 2026 announcement of investigations into 15 additional medical schools, signaling a systematic review of professional school admissions.

The 2023 Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard/UNC prohibited the direct consideration of race, but allowed institutions to consider how an applicant's background might contribute to broader characteristics like leadership or overcoming adversity. The DOJ now contends that Duke Law's holistic review process effectively circumvented that narrow carve-out. According to the findings, Black and Hispanic applicants with the same academic credentials as white and Asian applicants were admitted at substantially higher rates, and in 2024 and 2025, the median LSAT scores of rejected white and Asian applicants exceeded those of accepted Black and Hispanic students. This statistical pattern, the DOJ argues, is prima facie evidence of intentional discrimination.

The implications extend far beyond Durham, North Carolina. For higher education, the findings signal that any admissions practice that yields racially disparate outcomes—even if facially neutral—can become a legal liability. Schools that have relied on essays, personal statements, and non-cognitive assessments to build diverse classes must now reexamine their processes or risk similar enforcement actions and potential loss of federal funding. This is particularly acute for law and medical schools, where holistic admissions have been standard, and where the DOJ's focus on professional schools suggests a belief that such programs, as gateways to lucrative careers, warrant heightened scrutiny.