Attorneys General Sue Department of Education over new IPEDS requirements; Judge Issues Temporary Restraining Order on Filing Deadline

With just days remaining until the March 18, 2026 deadline to file the newly created ACTS section of the IPEDS report, a coalition of 17 States Attorneys General filed suit against the US Department of Education to halt the expansion. Filed in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the plaintiffs include the states of Massachusetts, California, Maryland, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin. The suit alleges that the Department of Education, Secretary Linda McMahon and the Office of Management and Budget, and its director acted unlawfully in implementing the new requirements.  

The plaintiffs are asking that the court find that the Department acted contrary to the laws when implementing the ACTS survey and to block the implementation of the survey. In developing news, on Friday, March 13, 2026, Judge Dennis Saylor of the US District Court, issued a temporary restraining order extending the deadline of submission to March 25, 2026 for institutions in the states that filed the lawsuit to allow for a hearing and resolution to the issues raised by the plaintiffs.

The Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement (ACTS) survey component of the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) report was proposed by the Department in August of 2025 in response to a memo from President Trump to Secretary McMahon calling for greater transparency in postsecondary admissions practices. The goal was to ensure that higher education institutions are not using race-based admissions practices in violation of the SFFA v Harvard decision by the Supreme Court. For more background on the ACTS survey and timeline, check out previous Berkshire blogs.

The suit by the States alleges that the Education Department is unlawfully expanding the IPEDS survey without having followed the procedures required by the Administrative Procedure Act as well as other requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act and the E-Government Act. These Acts help to protect transparency and data privacy, as well as include considerations for public input. The suit alleges that the disaggregated nature of the data submission poses a risk of inadvertently exposing the identity of students, which is contrary to privacy obligations by the institutions.

Further, the suit claims that “the scope, breadth, and rushed process of implementing the ACTS survey has harmed and will continue to harm Plaintiffs”. Institutions who are required to respond to the ACTS survey have had to quickly gather and compile the data, knowing there may be inconsistencies given the lack of direction and clarity from the Department. This inaccurate data could be detrimental to them in an investigation. But they must balance the fact that not responding on time or at all could also subject them to enforcement or loss of funding under Title IV.

The suit calls the data collection “arbitrary and capricious” by ignoring past practices and a failure to consider reasonable alternatives. This mirrors concerns raised during the public comment period regarding burden, privacy, and lack of direction for the new survey.

As this suit works through the court system, institutions whose reporting obligations were stayed as part of the lawsuit should continue preparing their ACTS submissions. Berkshire will continue to closely monitor the outcome of this suit and report as developments occur.