The U.S. Justice Department's Civil Rights Division has accused Duke University School of Law of discriminating in its admissions process by giving Black applicants roughly 3.5 times higher chances of admission than Asian applicants with the same academic credentials in 2025. This investigation, which began in April 2025, challenges Duke Law's admissions practices as violating the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA), which deemed race-based admissions unconstitutional.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon stated, "Duke Law School doesn’t get a free pass to discriminate against white and Asian students simply because it thinks it has good intentions." The DOJ also condemned the use of "diversity" essay questions to identify preferred races for admission as illegal racial discrimination, emphasizing the department's commitment to eliminating such practices in law schools nationwide.

Despite these allegations, Duke University maintains its commitment to comply with the law and continue admissions in a manner consistent with its academic mission. Following the SFFA ruling, Duke Law has continued to publish reports highlighting its diversity efforts and claims to pursue "race-neutral" admissions standards.

The DOJ's letter to Duke Law underscores that the magnitude and persistence of these racial preferences across multiple admissions cycles confirm intentional discrimination. The department also noted that differences in test scores between racial groups were substantial and unlikely to be coincidental, suggesting the admissions policies were designed to meet the law school's goals for a broadly diverse student body.

This issue was discussed during a House committee hearing on August 7, 2026, where lawmakers questioned medical school deans about similar allegations of race-based admissions preferences.

Sources