ACTS Survey Blocked for Hundreds More Schools, but Thousands Still Must Comply

Quick Hits

• A Massachusetts federal court extended its preliminary injunction blocking the ACTS survey mandate for twelve intervenor-plaintiffs, representing approximately 178 additional institutions of higher education.
• The court found that the intervenor-plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the ACTS survey was adopted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
• The court concluded it had the statutory authority to stay the ACTS survey nationwide under APA § 705 but declined to do so at this preliminary stage, leaving the survey in effect for the more than 2,000 four-year institutions that are not parties to this lawsuit.

On April 24, 2026, in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Education, U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV, issued a memorandum and order granting the motion of twelve intervenor-plaintiffs for a preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of the ACTS survey against them and their member institutions. The order extends the scope of the court’s prior April 3, 2026, preliminary injunction, which had blocked the survey only as to the seventeen original plaintiff states and their constituent colleges and universities. The ACTS survey continues to apply to colleges and universities that are not parties to the litigation.

Background: The ACTS Survey and the April 3 Preliminary Injunction

The ACTS survey is a component of the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), a system of interrelated surveys conducted annually by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The survey requires colleges and universities to report detailed admissions data, including information concerning race, ethnicity, gender, family income, parental education, test scores, and grade point averages, for all applicants, admitted students, and enrolled students at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, for the current year and the preceding six years. The survey operationalizes President Donald Trump’s August 7, 2025, memorandum directing the U.S. secretary of education to expand IPEDS data collection within 120 days to ensure compliance with the Supreme Court of the United States’ 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College.

On April 3, 2026, the court issued a preliminary injunction in favor of the seventeen original plaintiff states, finding that while the U.S. Department of Education likely had the statutory authority to collect the data at issue, the rushed process by which the ACTS survey was adopted, driven by the presidential 120-day deadline, likely violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court found that NCES failed to engage meaningfully with institutions during the notice-and-comment process to address concerns about the compressed timeline, impaired data quality, increased administrative burden, student privacy risks, and the unavailability of retroactive data. Critically, NCES acknowledged that the only reason it did not use its long-standing Technical Review Panel (TRP) process was the president’s 120-day deadline.

New Intervenor-Plaintiffs

Since the April 3 order, twelve plaintiffs have intervened in the proceeding and now seek the same preliminary injunctive relief. Six of the intervenor-plaintiffs are associations: the Association of American Universities (AAU), which represents seventy-one leading research universities in the United States and Canada (sixty-nine of which are located in the United States); the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts; the Connecticut Conference of Independent Colleges; the Maine Independent Colleges Association; North Carolina Independent Colleges and Universities; and the Oregon Alliance of Independent Colleges and Universities. In addition, six private colleges intervened individually. Collectively, the intervenors represent approximately 178 institutions of higher education beyond the original seventeen plaintiff states.

The Court’s Analysis

Adopting the reasoning from its April 3 order, the court found that the intervenor-plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that the ACTS survey is arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA, reiterating that the “principal problem” was the Department of Education’s failure to consider and respond to concerns about its capacity to implement ACTS on an expedited timeline while simultaneously dismantling NCES.

On the issue of irreparable harm, the government argued that many intervenor institutions had already completed or substantially completed the survey, undercutting their claims of immediate injury. The court disagreed, concluding that nearly all institutions continued to face ongoing compliance burdens and an “imminent, non-speculative risk of fines and loss of funding” should the government deem any submission inadequate. The court noted that the presidential memorandum directed the secretary of education to “take remedial action” without any apparent discretion to decline enforcement. On the balance of equities, the court found a “strong public interest in restraining the arbitrary exercise of power by the federal government” and in relieving universities of burdens that could be mitigated through a reasoned administrative process.

Scope of Relief: Party-Specific, Not Nationwide

The court also addressed whether to stay the ACTS survey on a nationwide basis under § 705 of the APA. It concluded that it likely had the statutory authority to do so, reasoning that § 705 authorizes a “temporary form of vacatur” that “acts on the agency action itself”—distinct from the universal injunctions curtailed by the Supreme Court’s June 2025 decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc. Nonetheless, the court declined to exercise that authority, citing concerns about judicial overreach, forum-shopping, and separation of powers, and noting that upward of 2,000 four-year institutions had not sought relief and might not want it. Accordingly, the court issued a preliminary injunction that mirrors the April 3 order but extends only to the six intervenor-plaintiff associations and their member schools and the six private institutions of higher education that also intervened.

Practical Implications for Higher Education Institutions

The court’s April 24, 2026 order significantly expands the universe of institutions shielded from the ACTS survey during the pendency of the litigation. However, the court’s decision not to issue a nationwide stay means that the ACTS survey remains in effect for the more than 2,000 four-year institutions that are not parties to the lawsuit. Those institutions remain subject to the survey’s reporting requirements, including the collateral risk of fines and loss of federal funding for submissions the government deems inadequate.

Notably, the court’s April 24 order has reaffirmed its earlier finding that the Department of Education has the statutory authority to collect admissions data disaggregated by race and other demographics, and that there is no obvious reason to restrict the use of such data for enforcement purposes.

Institutions that have submitted or will submit ACTS data may wish to consider conducting privileged internal analyses of their admissions data to identify potential areas of exposure before the Department of Education undertakes its own review. Given that the presidential memorandum of August 7, 2025, directed the secretary of education to “increase accuracy checks of submitted data” and “take remedial action” where submissions are deemed incomplete or inaccurate, institutions may benefit from understanding their data profiles and any patterns that could attract scrutiny under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

This litigation merits close scrutiny by institutions of higher education. The court has not entered a final judgment holding the ACTS survey unlawful, and the preliminary injunction reflects only a finding that the intervenor-plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits. Further developments may alter the compliance landscape.

Ogletree Deakins’ Higher Education Practice Group and Workforce Analytics and Compliance Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Compliance, Government Contracting and Reporting, Higher Education, State Developments, and Workforce Analytics and Compliance blogs as additional information becomes available.

This article and more information on how the Trump administration’s actions impact employers can be found on Ogletree Deakins’ Administration Resource Hub.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts