A federal court in Massachusetts has stepped in to block the U.S. Department of Education from enforcing a sweeping new data collection effort against public universities in 17 states. On April 3, 2026, the court granted a preliminary injunction to halt the Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement (ACTS) survey, ruling that the government likely implemented the program in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner.
The ruling provides an immediate reprieve for public institutions in states including California, New York, and Massachusetts, who argued that the survey’s requirements were not only administratively overwhelming but were rushed through without proper deliberation. The ACTS survey represents a massive expansion of the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), requiring schools to report detailed admissions, financial aid, and student outcomes data disaggregated by race, sex, GPA, and income.
Crucially, the survey demanded a level of historical data never before required in IPEDS history: a six-year lookback covering the academic years from 2019–20 through 2024–25. This retrospective requirement, combined with a tight filing deadline of March 18, 2026, became a central point of contention in the lawsuit, Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Education.
While the court halted enforcement for the plaintiff states, the ruling was not a total victory for the universities. The judge rejected claims that the Department of Education exceeded its statutory authority or violated the Paperwork Reduction Act, affirming that the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) has broad powers to collect demographic data, even if that data is later used for enforcement referrals regarding racial discrimination.
A Compressed Timeline and a Dismantled Agency
The court’s decision to grant the injunction centered on the process—or lack thereof—used to launch the ACTS survey. The timeline began in August 2025, when President Donald Trump directed the Secretary of Education to expand IPEDS reporting within 120 days. This directive was aimed at tracking race-conscious admissions practices following the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. V. President & Fellows of Harvard College.
According to the court, the NCES abandoned its traditional, multistep deliberative process—which typically includes technical review panels and stakeholder pilot testing—solely to meet this 120-day presidential deadline. The court noted that neither the president nor the Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon, provided a reasoned explanation for why such a compressed timeline was necessary.
Adding to the instability was the simultaneous “dismantling” of the Department of Education. The court found that the agency “entirely failed” to consider how its own shrinking workforce could possibly manage the expanded workload of the ACTS survey. Evidence presented showed that NCES staff had been slashed from approximately 100 employees to as few as three or 13, while the specific IPEDS team dropped from eight members to just three.
The Administrative Burden and Financial Risk
The court found that the survey created “irreparable harm” by forcing public institutions to divert critical resources away from essential functions, such as accreditation and the processing of scholarship awards, to restructure their data-collection systems.
Beyond the administrative headache, the court highlighted a significant legal risk: the possibility of inaccurate data submissions caused by unclear definitions and the rushed timeline. Because federal regulations allow for fines of up to $71,545 per violation, the court viewed the risk of erroneous enforcement actions as a compelling reason to pause the survey’s rollout.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| August 2025 | Presidential directive to expand IPEDS reporting within 120 days. |
| Dec 18, 2025 | Department of Education officially opens the ACTS survey. |
| March 11, 2026 | Lawsuit filed by Massachusetts and 16 other states. |
| March 18, 2026 | Original deadline for institutions to complete the survey. |
| April 3, 2026 | Federal court grants preliminary injunction for 17 states. |
Who is Affected by the Injunction?
The relief provided by the court is not nationwide. The injunction applies specifically to the 17 plaintiff states and their constituent public institutions. These states are:
- California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.
Institutions located outside these 17 states remain subject to the ACTS survey requirements unless they seek and obtain separate judicial relief. However, the court’s finding that the survey was likely adopted in an arbitrary manner may provide a legal roadmap for other states or university groups to file similar challenges.
As part of the order, the court required all institutions in the plaintiff states to retain all records responsive to the ACTS survey for the duration of the litigation, ensuring that data is preserved even while enforcement is paused.
Legal Nuances and Statutory Authority
The court’s ruling clarifies that the U.S. Department of Education does have the legal right to collect this data under 20 U.S.C. § 9543(a)(3). The judge noted that the survey “fits comfortably” within the agency’s authority to gather disaggregated data by race, and ethnicity. The court specifically rejected the argument that the survey was “non-neutral” because it could be used for enforcement, stating that identifying patterns of racial discrimination is one of the primary reasons the government seeks such data in the first place.
The court also addressed the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), concluding that the agency only needs to certify compliance and provide a supporting record, rather than having a court independently verify the substantive compliance of the agency’s processes.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Institutions should consult with legal counsel regarding their specific compliance obligations.
Next Steps in the Litigation
The legal battle is far from over. The court has deferred a ruling on issues regarding student privacy, and the preliminary injunction remains subject to further modification as the case proceeds.
The next significant checkpoint is scheduled for April 13, 2026, when the court will hold a hearing on motions to intervene filed by the Association of American Universities (AAU) and the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts (AICUM). These organizations seek to join the litigation, which could potentially expand the scope of the challenge to include private institutions.
We invite readers to share their thoughts on this ruling in the comments below and share this story with colleagues in higher education administration.
