DOJ Accuses Duke Law of Violating Title VI by Using Proxies for Race-Based Admissions

The tension between a university’s desire for a diverse student body and the strict colorblind mandate of the Supreme Court has reached a breaking point. On August 6, 2026, the Department of Justice formally accused Duke University School of Law of intentionally discriminating against white and Asian applicants to preserve race-based outcomes.[1][2]

The DOJ’s findings letter marks the most aggressive federal enforcement of the 2023 Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) ruling to date. It signals that federal investigators will not just look at explicit racial quotas, but will audit the "proxies"—essay questions, Pell Grant status, and application tags—that schools use to build their classes.[1][5]

The evidence anchoring the DOJ’s claim rests on stark statistical disparities in objective academic metrics. According to the investigation, the median Law School Admission Test (LSAT) score for admitted Black applicants in the 2024 cycle was 164, while the median for admitted Asian applicants was 173. Admitted white applicants held a median score of 172, and Hispanic applicants held a 170.[1][2]

This gap persisted into the 2025 admissions cycle. More critically for the DOJ’s legal argument, the median LSAT scores of rejected white and Asian applicants in both years actually exceeded the median scores of admitted Black applicants.[1][3]

Federal investigators ran statistical models controlling for undergraduate GPA and LSAT scores to isolate the impact of race. They concluded that a Black applicant was roughly 3.5 times as likely to be admitted to Duke Law as an Asian applicant with identical academic credentials.[1][5]

To explain how this disparity occurred without explicit racial checkboxes, the DOJ pointed to Duke’s holistic review process. Following the SFFA ruling, Duke Law revised its mission statement to emphasize a "diversity of perspective and experience."[1]

Admissions reviewers were allegedly instructed to use specific tags on applicant files. One tag flagged responses to diversity-focused short-answer essays, while another tracked whether an applicant received a Pell Grant—a socioeconomic marker the DOJ claims was used as a deliberate proxy for race.[1][2]

The evidence pack also includes internal communications obtained during the probe. The DOJ cited a November 2023 email from Duke Law’s Associate Dean for Admissions discussing strategies to ensure colleagues did not abandon diversity goals, which investigators framed as explicit intent to circumvent the Supreme Court’s ban.[1][3]

Duke University has not conceded the allegations. In a public statement, a university spokesperson confirmed they are reviewing the letter and its conclusions carefully, maintaining that the school is committed to complying with the law in a manner consistent with its academic mission.[2][3]

Because Duke Law receives federal financial assistance, it is bound by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The DOJ is currently seeking a voluntary resolution agreement to force changes to the admissions process, but has threatened to file a federal lawsuit if settlement negotiations fail.[1][3]

This enforcement action does not exist in a vacuum. It follows a broader federal push to audit elite institutions, indicating a sustained focus on compliance across the higher education sector.[5]

While the statistical disparities in LSAT scores are heavily documented, the legal evidence proving intentional proxy discrimination remains untested in court. Establishing that a university used socioeconomic markers like Pell Grants specifically to engineer racial outcomes—rather than to genuinely assist low-income students—is a high legal bar that a voluntary settlement would leave unresolved.[4][5]