On March 11, 2026, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, joined by seventeen other states, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts challenging the U.S. Department of Education’s (“Department”) implementation of a new component of the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (“IPEDS”): the Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement (“ACTS”) survey. See Hunton’s prior client alert on the ACTS survey.

The ACTS survey expanded federal reporting requirements to include the provision of detailed admissions and financial aid data disaggregated by race and sex, including retrospective data for the last six academic years. Because the Department sought to implement these requirements immediately, certain institutions pursued and obtained preliminary injunctive relief suspending compliance while the case proceeds.

Institutions participating in federal student aid programs remain subject to numerous federal reporting obligations, including IPEDS. This litigation concerns whether the Department lawfully implemented the ACTS survey—not the continued existence of IPEDS itself.

What does this litigation mean for colleges and universities?

IPEDS, administered by the National Center for Education Statistics (“NCES”), is the federal government’s primary postsecondary education data collection system. Institutions participating in federal student aid programs generally must complete IPEDS reporting as a condition of participation.

In August 2025, Secretary McMahon directed NCES to implement the ACTS survey as part of IPEDS reporting requirements following President Trump’s memorandum, “Ensuring Transparency in Higher Education Admissions.” As discussed in Hunton’s earlier client alert, the ACTS survey would require many institutions to report detailed undergraduate admissions and financial aid information, including data disaggregated by race and sex for the current reporting year and multiple prior academic years.

The ACTS survey represents a substantial expansion of information historically collected through IPEDS and has generated concern regarding both the administrative burden of compiling historical data and the compliance implications of reporting information that institutions were not previously required to maintain.

The Current State of the Litigation

Massachusetts and the other plaintiff states contend that the Department exceeded its statutory authority by transforming IPEDS from a statistical reporting system into a tool supporting civil rights enforcement and other federal policy objectives. They also allege that the Department violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and other procedural requirements governing federal agency action. Several higher education associations and individual institutions have since intervened in the litigation.

The plaintiffs seek declarations that the ACTS survey is unlawful, vacatur of its approval, and injunctive relief preventing the Department from enforcing the reporting requirements. The litigation has already produced significant interim relief. Following a series of temporary restraining orders, U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV entered preliminary injunctions preventing the Department from enforcing ACTS reporting deadlines against the plaintiff states, the intervening colleges and associations, and member institutions of those associations. Importantly, these injunctions do not apply nationwide. Institutions that are not covered by the injunctions generally remain subject to the Department’s current reporting requirements unless additional judicial relief is granted.

The Department has also asked the court to remand the matter to the agency without vacating the ACTS survey so that it may supplement its explanation supporting the survey’s implementation. The plaintiff states oppose that request, arguing that additional explanation cannot cure the alleged procedural deficiencies. The court is scheduled to hear the Department’s motion on July 21, 2026.

Legal and Compliance Considerations

Although the litigation remains ongoing, it raises several issues that extend beyond the ACTS survey itself.

First, the case reflects the federal government’s increasing use of mandatory data collection as part of broader oversight and enforcement efforts against colleges and universities. Institutions should recognize that information submitted through required reporting systems may be used for purposes beyond statistical analysis, including informing agency investigations, enforcement priorities, and False Claims Act claims.

Second, the litigation highlights the practical challenges associated with retrospective reporting requirements. Depending on existing recordkeeping practices, compiling historical admissions and financial aid data may require significant coordination among admissions, financial aid, institutional research, information technology, compliance, and legal personnel.

Third, institutions face different compliance obligations depending on whether they are protected by the preliminary injunctions. Institutions covered by the injunctions are not currently subject to enforcement of the ACTS reporting deadlines addressed by those orders. Institutions outside the scope of the injunctions should continue evaluating their existing reporting obligations while closely monitoring developments in the litigation.

Finally, regardless of the outcome of this case, institutions of higher education remain subject to numerous overlapping legal obligations governing admissions, student records, civil rights compliance, and federal reporting. The litigation concerns the legality of the Department’s implementation of a particular reporting requirement; it does not alter institutions’ underlying obligations under statutes such as Title VI, Title IX, FERPA, and other applicable federal or state laws.

Practical Considerations

As the litigation continues, colleges and universities should consider:

• Reviewing existing processes for collecting and maintaining admissions and financial aid data.
• Determining whether historical data requested by the ACTS survey can be reliably produced, and if not, take steps to remedy this.
• Evaluating historical and prospective admissions and financial aid data under attorney-client privilege to identify potential legal or compliance issues, particularly to head off any private litigation, federal enforcement and litigation, and False Claims Act claims.
• Coordinating among institutional research, admissions, financial aid, information technology, compliance, and legal offices regarding data governance and reporting responsibilities.
• Monitoring further court rulings and Department guidance regarding implementation of the ACTS survey.

Conclusion

The litigation challenging the ACTS survey presents important questions regarding the Department’s authority to expand mandatory institutional reporting requirements through IPEDS. Although preliminary injunctions currently protect certain institutions, significant legal and practical questions remain unresolved. Institutions should continue monitoring developments while evaluating their reporting practices and preparing for potential changes as the litigation proceeds.

Hunton’s Higher Education Team regularly advises colleges and universities on compliance with federal education laws, regulatory reporting obligations, and agency enforcement developments. If you have questions regarding this litigation or its implications for your institution, please contact your regular Hunton Higher Education attorney.

The Hunton Higher Education Team thanks Emily Gajda, a Hunton summer associate and rising 3L at the University of North Carolina, for her assistance on this client alert.