The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has accused Duke University’s law school of unlawfully considering race in its admissions process, despite the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling that declared affirmative action unconstitutional. According to a findings letter issued by the DOJ, Duke allegedly used proxies for race, such as personal essays and first-generation college status, to favor Black and Hispanic applicants over white and Asian ones with similar or stronger academic profiles. The DOJ cited data showing that in 2024 and 2025, white and Asian applicants who were rejected had higher LSAT scores than admitted Black applicants. ([apnews.com](https://apnews.com/article/f4ee7a6c8c935bb62584dcc12325d9c8?utm_source=openai))
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division stated, “Duke Law School doesn’t get a free pass to discriminate against white and Asian students simply because it thinks it has good intentions. Using ‘diversity’ essay questions to identify preferred races for admission is still illegal discrimination based on … .” ([apnews.com](https://apnews.com/article/f4ee7a6c8c935bb62584dcc12325d9c8?utm_source=openai))
Duke University responded by stating it is reviewing the DOJ’s letter and remains committed to lawful and academically aligned admissions practices. ([apnews.com](https://apnews.com/article/f4ee7a6c8c935bb62584dcc12325d9c8?utm_source=openai))
This action is part of a broader effort by the DOJ to scrutinize higher education institutions for allegedly using indirect means to sustain racial diversity, which conservatives argue constitutes discrimination. The DOJ has initiated similar investigations into additional institutions, including the medical schools at Yale and UCLA. ([apnews.com](https://apnews.com/article/f4ee7a6c8c935bb62584dcc12325d9c8?utm_source=openai))
The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard marked a significant shift in the legal landscape regarding race-conscious admissions policies. The ruling declared that universities may not make admissions decisions that turn on an applicant’s race, emphasizing that such practices treat individuals as the product of their race, evaluating their worth as citizens according to a criterion barred by the Constitution. ([en.wikipedia.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v._Harvard?utm_source=openai))
In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling, the DOJ issued a memorandum to all U.S. law school deans and admissions officers, emphasizing the elimination of race-based preferences in admissions and employment decisions. The memorandum highlighted that de facto racial preferences established through application essays or other means are also unlawful, urging caution regarding any diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives that define diversity in terms of race and sex outcomes. ([justice.gov](https://www.justice.gov/ag/media/1394911/dl?inline=&utm_source=openai))
Duke Law School’s anti-discrimination policy states that the university prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, disability, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, sex, genetic information, or age in the administration of its educational policies, admission policies, financial aid, employment, or any other university program or activity. ([law.duke.edu](https://law.duke.edu/sites/default/files/publicinterest/dl_antidiscrimination_policy.pdf?utm_source=openai))
The DOJ is currently seeking a settlement with Duke Law School. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for admissions practices at law schools and other higher education institutions nationwide, as they navigate the complexities of fostering diversity while adhering to legal constraints. ([apnews.com](https://apnews.com/article/f4ee7a6c8c935bb62584dcc12325d9c8?utm_source=openai))