On August 6, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a findings letter concluding that Duke University School of Law violated Title VI in admissions for its incoming classes of 2023, 2024, and 2025. The DOJ conducted the compliance review because Duke Law receives federal financial assistance and evaluated its practices under the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA), which limited the consideration of race in college admissions. According to the DOJ, Duke Law continued to intentionally consider race in deciding which applicants to admit after SFFA.
The DOJ relied heavily on Duke Law’s internal communications and admissions materials. Among other things, the DOJ identified internal discussions about continuing to achieve a racially diverse student body following SFFA, including consideration of admissions strategies that could further the School’s diversity goals. The DOJ pointed to application-review guidance that instructed admissions reviewers to tag applicants with a “Diversity/Services” tag if their answer related to diversity of perspective and experience. Reviewers also used tags to capture applicant characteristics commonly correlated with race, such as being first-generation or a Pell Grant recipient.
Although Duke Law’s published policies stated that reviewers did not see applicants’ racial demographic data and that the School would not monitor racial composition during decision-making, the DOJ concluded that these other factors operated as “race-related proxies” because, in its view, the record demonstrated they were being used to advance racial diversity objectives.
The Department also cited internal communications and annual admissions reviews that continued to track racial outcomes. For example, a 2024 internal review identified the number of Latino, Black, and Asian/Asian American students in the entering class, while describing a goal of continuing to develop effective “race-neutral admissions policies.” The DOJ concluded that the combination of these communications, admissions procedures, and internal tracking demonstrated an intent to influence racial outcomes despite the School’s formal race-neutral policies.
The DOJ further relied on applicant-level admissions data. According to the Department’s analysis, in 2025, a Black applicant had approximately 3.5 times the probability of admission as an Asian applicant with similar LSAT and undergraduate GPA credentials. The DOJ also identified differences in median LSAT scores among admitted applicants and concluded that Black and Hispanic applicants had a substantially higher likelihood of admission than similarly credentialed White and Asian applicants. The Department stated that these disparities persisted after SFFA and could not, in its view, be explained by race-neutral considerations.
The Department is seeking a voluntary resolution agreement with Duke University to bring its admissions practices into compliance with Title VI; the findings letter does not reflect a court ruling or final adjudication of liability.
The full findings letter can be found , and the press release can be found .
Note:
Although Title VI does not apply to private schools that do not receive federal financial assistance, private schools remain subject to other nondiscrimination laws, including 42 U.S.C. section 1981, which prohibits race discrimination in contracting (e.g., enrollment contracts). The DOJ’s analysis provides a useful reminder that facially race-neutral admissions criteria may still create legal risk if evidence suggests they are being used as proxies for race or for the purpose of producing particular outcomes.