The Justice Department says Duke Law intentionally used race as an admissions factor, citing a review of the classes of 2023 through 2025 and concluding the school’s practices favored some racial groups over others in violation of federal law.

The Department of Justice has issued a formal finding that Duke University School of Law intentionally discriminated against white and Asian applicants by using race in admissions after the Supreme Court forbade that practice. Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon led a compliance review covering the 2023, 2024, and 2025 admissions cycles. That span includes cycles both before and after the High Court’s 2023 Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard decision, which ended race-conscious admissions.

The DOJ’s findings letter determined that Duke Law School “intentionally discriminated based on race” and that its admissions process “bolstered the prospects of black and Hispanic applicants” at the expense of others. Dhillon’s team concluded the school’s approach resulted in “highly qualified white, Asian, and other students” being “denied admission on the basis of their race.” Those are strong charges that go beyond paperwork errors and point to deliberate policy choices.

The department singled out so-called diversity essays as a tool the school used to identify and favor applicants by race. Officials said those essay questions were treated as a proxy for race and that first-generation status was also used in ways that tracked racial outcomes. That pattern looks like a workaround: neutral-sounding categories that function as racial sorting devices.

The findings letter cites a “significant disparity in objective academic metrics between black and Hispanic applicants compared with applicants from other racial categories.” In the 2024 and 2025 cycles, the median LSAT scores of rejected white and Asian applicants exceeded the median scores of admitted Black applicants. When admissions results consistently tilt in favor of lower-scoring candidates from preferred groups, fairness and the rule of law are at stake.

This is not merely an academic dispute over admissions jargon. If an applicant with a stronger record is turned away because another applicant is in a racially preferred category, the process is discriminatory, not holistic. The Civil Rights Act’s prohibition against racial discrimination is plain, and the DOJ’s finding accuses Duke of violating that statute.

Dhillon framed the case as a warning to other elite schools that might try to preserve racial preferences under new labels. The Department has taken similar enforcement actions in other instances, signaling a broader readiness to press institutions to align practices with the Supreme Court’s ruling and federal civil rights law.

“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 race, and this Department is committed to eliminating it everywhere we find it, including in our nation’s law schools.”

The DOJ is seeking a voluntary resolution agreement to bring Duke into compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, though the findings letter did not list a response deadline or spell out penalties if the school declines to cooperate. Duke issued a cautious reply saying it is “reviewing the letter and its conclusions carefully” and that it will comply with the law while staying true to its academic mission.

“We are reviewing the letter and its conclusions carefully. Duke is committed to complying with the law and will continue to do so in a manner that is consistent with our academic mission.”

That statement neither admitted the DOJ’s charges nor explained how the university would address the specific allegations. It leaves open whether Duke will fight the findings, seek a negotiated settlement, or change practices quietly to avoid federal consequences. For now, the public record is limited to the DOJ’s conclusions and the university’s noncommittal response.

The Duke action fits a pattern: the department is investigating other medical and professional schools for similar concerns and has identified multiple institutions for review. Yale, UCLA, and several medical schools have faced scrutiny, and the DOJ has opened probes into an additional set of programs. Taken together, these moves indicate enforcement is systematic rather than sporadic.

Critics warned after the Supreme Court’s decision that universities might invent new measures to preserve the same racial outcomes, and the DOJ says that is what it has found. If diversity essays and first-generation labels are used as stand-ins for race rather than genuine measures of experience, the effect is to keep race at the center of admissions despite the Court’s ruling.

The DOJ noted that Black and Hispanic applicants were “much more likely to be admitted than white or Asian applicants with the same academic credentials” in the cycles reviewed. That kind of gap raises straightforward questions: how were essay responses scored, did admissions officers receive race-focused guidance, and what remedies will the department demand if the school resists a voluntary agreement? Answers will matter to applicants and to other institutions watching how federal law is enforced.