Trump's Justice Dept. Takes Swipe at Harvard in Admissions Lawsuit
The Justice Department cites its ongoing investigation of Harvard's admissions policies in seeking broad access to key material in a pending lawsuit in Massachusetts.
April 06, 2018 at 05:32 PM
4 minute read
U.S. Justice Department headquarters in Washington, D.C. Credit : Diego M. Radzinschi/ ALM Media
The U.S. Department of Justice, citing its continuing investigation into discrimination against Asian-Americans in Harvard's admissions policies, urged a federal judge on Friday to provide public access to key materials in a pending race discrimination lawsuit against the college.
The Justice Department told U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs in Massachusetts that while it may not intervene in the lawsuit, the government may file a “statement of interest” at the summary judgment phase of the case, Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College.
“Given the overlap between this suit and the United States' investigation, this court's resolution of issues presented here may bear on the scope and resolution of the United States' investigation and enforcement of federal civil rights laws,” lawyers from the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division said in the court filing.
In the lawsuit, Students for Fair Admissions alleged that Harvard College has engaged in intentional discrimination against Asian-Americans in its admissions process in violation of federal civil rights law.
The Justice Department, acting on a similar complaint filed by more than 60 Asian-American organizations, is investigating whether Harvard has violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VI prohibits discrimination based on race, color and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal funds. John Gore, a former Jones Day partner, is the acting assistant attorney general of the Civil Rights Division. The Trump administration's nomination of Jones Day's Eric Dreiband is pending.
“We applaud DOJ's support of our efforts to allow the American public access to the record we have assembled during the last three-and-a-half years of litigation. Public access and transparency is the bedrock of our judicial system,” Edward Blum, director of the Project on Fair Representation and an architect of the Harvard suit, said in a statement.
Harvard's lawyers at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr told the court in a March 30 letter that the parties had exchanged more than 90,000 pages of documents in discovery that had been designated as confidential or highly confidential but only a small fraction would be used in summary judgments briefs. Wilmer's Felicia Ellsworth proposed filing briefs and supporting documents provisionally under seal.
“Harvard understands that there is a public interest in this case and that the public has certain—though not unfettered—interests in access to judicial materials,” Harvard's lawyers told the court. “Those interests, however, must be balanced against the need to protect individual privacy and confidential and proprietary information about the admissions process.”
The Justice Department said Harvard's proposal, if accepted by the court, “would create substantial obstacles to the ability of nonparties to participate in summary judgment—and, more likely, might even eliminate that opportunity entirely.”
Harvard spokeswoman Rachael Dane said in a statement:
“Harvard College is responsible for protecting the confidential and highly sensitive personal information that prospective students—none of whom asked to be involved in this dispute—entrust to us every year in their applications. We are committed to safeguarding their privacy while also ensuring that the public has the access that it is entitled to under the law.”
A coalition of media groups also filed a letter with the court on Friday urging public access to materials in the lawsuit.
“The coalition's concern is not whether Harvard's admission process violates federal civil rights law, but instead that judicial records shedding light on this dispute—which is of exceptional public importance and community interest—remain open to the public,” wrote Sigmund Schutz of Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios in Portland, Maine, for the New England First Amendment Coalition, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the Massachusetts Newspaper Publishers Association and GateHouse Media.
The Justice Department's notice is posted below:
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrump's SEC Likely to Halt 'Off-Channel' Texting Probe That's Led to Billions in Fines
Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
5 minute readUS Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250