Federal Legal Reversal Upends Race‑Conscious Aid: What the DOJ Opinion Means for FAFSA Data Sharing and MSIs

In a dramatic reversal of long-standing federal support for minority students, the Department of Justice has declared that key programs serving historically Black and Hispanic-serving institutions are unconstitutional. The ruling targets race-conscious scholarship access and federal aid data sharing, effectively dismantling decades of policy designed to close educational gaps. For many MSIs and their students, the shift represents a Trump-era rollback of racial equity in higher education, leaving institutions scrambling to protect access and funding in a suddenly hostile legal landscape.

The U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel has delivered what may be one of the most consequential legal opinions affecting federal education policy in decades: a sweeping conclusion that a suite of federal programs tied to minority‑serving institutions (MSIs) and race‑specific scholarships are unconstitutional under current equal‑protection jurisprudence. 

At the center of this interpretation is a fundamental shift in how federal racial criteria are viewed post-Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard/UNC. In that landmark affirmative‑action decision, the Supreme Court significantly tightened the permissible bounds of race‑conscious decision making. The DOJ memo applies that framework beyond admissions, asserting that programs awarding federal funds based on racial or ethnic enrollment thresholds — including MSI grant programs — “effectively employ a racial quota.” 

One particularly striking aspect of the opinion is its treatment of access to Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) data by the United Negro College Fund and the Hispanic Scholarship Fund — organizations that award scholarships targeted to students of specific racial or ethnic backgrounds. The opinion deems it unconstitutional for these groups to receive FAFSA applicant data because the statute enabling such sharing confers access only to entities that grant race‑specific awards. 

Supporters of aiding historically marginalized students and institutions view this as an unprecedented restriction that could severely constrain outreach and support for those populations. Critics charge the move fits a broader administrative pattern of dismantling federal race‑conscious programs and argue that it disregards the statutory authority Congress explicitly provided — including the discretionary authority vested in the Education Secretary to administer FAFSA data sharing.

As one expert aide pointed out in private correspondence, the statutory provision that enabled FAFSA access was framed with Secretary discretion in mind — meaning it was lawful as written. But with DOJ now labeling such practices as impermissibly discriminatory, liability has been reallocated onto the administrative apparatus itself. That shift, in effect, insulates senior officials — including the Secretary — from culpability once the practice ends, leaving career bureaucrats to unwind systems built over years.

---

The Policy and Legal Stakes

For nearly four decades, the federal government has maintained a suite of targeted programs intended to close longstanding educational opportunity gaps. These include grants for MSIs, race‑specific scholarships, and data‑sharing mechanisms like FAFSA access that enable outreach to underrepresented students seeking financial aid.

Beginning in July 2025, the Department of Education began scaling back discretionary grants to MSIs after the U.S. Solicitor General declined to defend race‑based criteria in court, particularly the Hispanic‑Serving Institutions definition requiring at least 25% Hispanic enrollment. By September, the Department officially announced the planned termination of most MSI discretionary grant funds for FY2025 — a decision informed by the constitutional concerns later articulated in the DOJ opinion. 

Until now, many observers assumed that statutory authority and congressional backing provided a stable legal foundation for such programs. But the OLC’s memo challenges that assumption, concluding that race‑based eligibility criteria — whether for institutional support or student scholarships — are no longer defensible under current constitutional interpretation. 

The implications extend far beyond MSI grants. If organizations that provide targeted scholarships based on race or ethnicity can no longer receive key federal administrative data, the practical capacity of those groups to serve students could be significantly hampered.

---

Political and Institutional Reactions

The DOJ opinion has drawn sharply polarized responses. Administration officials frame the memo as an affirmation of equal protection and a necessary correction to federal programs that, in their view, relied on impermissible racial criteria. Congressional allies of the Administration characterize the changes as ending “racial discrimination” in federal education policy.

Conversely, Democratic legislators and MSI leaders condemn the opinion as ideologically driven and harmful to institutions that serve historically underserved populations. Critics say the analysis ignores longstanding bipartisan congressional support for such programs and portends deep cuts in educational opportunity. 

Institutional leaders at a range of MSIs have expressed alarm, underlining that funding and support mechanisms now in jeopardy are “vital” to student success and campus mission. Many campuses are scrambling to assess fiscal exposure and consider contingency planning.

---

Looking Ahead

With federal policy in flux and several legal questions unresolved, higher education professionals face an uncertain environment. Institutions historically supported by race‑conscious federal programs may need to rethink recruitment, financial aid outreach, and partnerships with scholarship providers. Meanwhile, advocates and lawmakers may pursue legislative fixes or constitutional litigation to reshuffle the legal landscape once more.

Whatever the outcome, the DOJ opinion marks a pivotal moment in federal student aid policy — one likely to reshape how race, equity, and opportunity are legally navigated in the years to come.

---

HEI Reader Context: What This Means for MSIs

• Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs): Loss of FAFSA data access and potential cuts to discretionary MSI grants could disrupt scholarship outreach, enrollment initiatives, and pipeline programs designed to recruit and retain underrepresented students. HBCUs may need to develop alternative channels for financial aid outreach, including direct partnerships with donors and private scholarship organizations.

• Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs): Many HSIs rely on federal discretionary grants to supplement state funding and support programs for first-generation and low-income students. The DOJ opinion may force HSIs to reallocate institutional resources to cover programs previously funded through race-conscious federal grants.

• Scholarship Organizations: Groups like the United Negro College Fund (UNCF) and the Hispanic Scholarship Fund (HSF) may no longer receive FAFSA data, limiting their ability to identify eligible students efficiently. Expect increased reliance on outreach campaigns, social media, and partnerships with local school districts.

• Institutional Planning: MSIs should assess short-term financial exposure, prioritize scholarship communications, and explore private funding alternatives. Legal and policy monitoring will be critical as legislative or judicial responses evolve.

---

Sources

1. Inside Higher Ed. “DOJ Report Declares MSIs Unconstitutional.” December 22, 2025. Link

2. Higher Ed Dive. “DOJ Says MSI Grant Funding Unconstitutional.” December 22, 2025. Link

3. ED.gov. “US Department of Education Ends Funding for Racially Discriminatory Discretionary Grant Programs, Minority-Serving Institutions.” July 2025. Link

4. EducationCounsel. “E-Update: September 22, 2025.” Link

Deadly Lincoln University mass shooting: Vigil held on campus; investigation continues (Fox 29 Philadelphia)

 

Detectives believe multiple shooters were involved in a mass shooting that occurred during Lincoln University's homecoming that left a 20-year-old Wilmington, Delaware man dead and six others injured.

Defunded and Targeted: The 2025 Crisis Facing Minority-Serving Institutions

In a move that has rattled institutions, students, and advocates, the U.S. Department of Education under the Trump administration has announced it will eliminate approximately $350 million in discretionary grant funding for dozens of minority-serving institutions (MSIs) nationwide. The cuts affect seven major grant programs that support Hispanic-Serving Institutions, Predominantly Black Institutions, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions, and Asian American, Native American, and Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions.

The administration’s stated rationale is that these programs violate constitutional equal protection principles by limiting eligibility based on race and ethnicity. A Solicitor General determination in July argued that some of these programs run afoul of the Fifth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. As a result, the Department of Education says it must terminate these discretionary funds and “reprogram” them into initiatives without race or ethnicity as eligibility criteria.

These grants have been essential for many MSIs: they have financed academic support services, facility improvements, staffing, mentoring and advising programs, and Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics pathways aimed at underrepresented students. They have also helped institutions meet accreditation requirements and federal compliance demands. In the California State University system, for instance, 21 of its 22 campuses qualify as Hispanic-Serving Institutions. CSU Chancellor Mildred García has warned that the loss of funding will cause “immediate impact and irreparable harm” across the system, with many of those campuses having Hispanic students constituting nearly half of their enrollment.

Legally, the Department of Justice has declined to defend several of these MSI programs in litigation filed by Tennessee and Students for Fair Admissions. The core legal claim is that race- or ethnicity-based eligibility constitutes an unconstitutional preference not sufficiently justified under strict scrutiny. The administration has portrayed its actions not only as legal necessities but as aligning with broader priorities that avoid what it sees as constitutionally weak race-based criteria.

The consequences are likely to be broad. Without this discretionary funding, many MSIs will struggle to maintain programs focused on student persistence, remedial education, and equity‐oriented innovation. Services and supports for students who already face systemic barriers risk being cut. For students, this could translate into higher dropout rates, longer time to degree, and fewer resources. More broadly, institutions serve as engines of social mobility; removing a key source of institutional support may disproportionately harm communities of color and rural or underserved areas.

These changes arrive amid growing concerns about campus safety and the psychological toll inflicted by fear and disruption. In recent days several Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) have been forced into lockdown or canceled classes following hoax threat calls—“swatting” incidents—that mimic real violence but are ultimately false. Schools including Virginia State University, Hampton University, Alabama State University, Bethune-Cookman University, Spelman College, Morehouse, Clark Atlanta, Southern University & A&M College, and others faced terroristic threat letters or hoax calls that led to shelter-in-place orders, lockdowns, and heightened security measures. Though the FBI confirms that as of now no credible threat has been identified in many cases, the disruption has been real and traumatic for students, faculty, and administrators. These events underscore how fragile promises of safety can be, especially in institutions that already contend with systemic underfunding and inequity.

Administrations of affected universities have responded with caution. Some campuses suspended operations entirely, others canceled classes for multiple days, and many restricted access and tightened identification requirements. There are also broader legal and psychological costs: the stress, fear, and interruption to learning can exacerbate existing inequities in mental health and academic performance.

Even congressionally mandated funding—approximately $132 million that cannot immediately be reprogrammed—is under review for constitutionality. If more funding is cut or reallocated, more programs that target underrepresented populations by race or ethnicity may be dismantled.

Reaction from campus leaders, student advocates, and civil rights organizations has been swift. Many insist that these MSI programs are essential for closing equity gaps and forging institutional capacity that benefits all students. They argue that the cuts and these swatting-style threats combine to send a message: that institutions serving marginalized communities are especially vulnerable, legally and physically. The administration holds that it is compelled by constitutional law to end programs it deems indefensible, and that reprogramming funds to race-neutral programs is the correct path forward.

Looking ahead, legal challenges are almost certain. Questions include: what justifications are required under constitutional scrutiny; whether socioeconomic, geographic, or first-generation status metrics can be substituted for race or ethnicity eligibility; how institutions will respond financially and operationally; and what role Congress might play in defending or restructuring funding mandates. Meanwhile, ensuring physical and psychological safety on campuses—especially HBCUs—will remain a pressing concern in a climate where hoaxes and threats have become disturbingly frequent.

The elimination of $350 million in discretionary grants to minority-serving institutions marks a major shift in federal higher education policy. For MSIs, their students, and the communities they serve, the immediate effects may be devastating. But the broader questions raised—about constitutional limits, equity, race as public policy, and the safety of marginalized communities—are likely to echo well beyond this administration.

---

Sources

• Diverse: Issues in Higher Education, “Trump Administration Cuts $350 Million in Grants to Minority-Serving Colleges,” September 2025.

• AP News, “Historically Black Colleges Issue Lockdown Orders, Cancel Classes After Receiving Threats,” September 2025. apnews.com

• Washington Post, “Multiple Historically Black Colleges Launch Lockdowns After ‘Terroristic’ Threat,” September 2025. washingtonpost.com

• Axios, “’Terroristic threats’ disrupt life at HBCUs across the U.S.” axios.com

• People Magazine, “Threats Force Multiple HBCUs Across Southern U.S. to Lock Down, Cancel Classes.” people.com

• The Guardian, “Black students and colleges across US targeted with racist threats day after Charlie Kirk killing.” theguardian.com

Raw Deals in Higher Education

In a 2022 interview with Gary Stocker of College Viability App, we discussed the idea of bad deals in higher education. And as the College Meltdown advances, we expect many more bad deals to occur, both for institutions and consumers.   

Already, in early 2025, we have seen documentation of the collapse of St. Augustine University, a 146-year old HBCU in North Carolina. We expect many more collapses and closures like this, and difficult mergers, to occur in the coming years. The immense greed we saw in for-profit higher education a decade ago we'll see in public and non-profit private education.

HEI will attempt to document these events not merely as news, but as part of a larger pattern of criminality in US higher education, not just at the institutional level, but at the state and federal level, and with predatory banks and other investors who are working on these deals behind the scenes.  We also plan to explain how this predatory behavior damages communities. Communities with people.  

 

Tuskegee University is Ready to Enroll Students in New Aviation Degree Program (Tuskegee University)

Tuskegee, Alabama — After working to secure funding, partnerships and accreditation, Tuskegee University is proud to announce that students who are interested in continuing the tradition of the Tuskegee Airmen will be able to enroll in the new Aviation Science degree program in January.

“When the nation needed aviators to face down Hitler over European skies in World War II, it was Tuskegee on the grounds of Moton Field where the myth that people of color could not fly was shattered,” said Dr. Mark A. Brown, President and CEO of Tuskegee University. “The Tuskegee Airmen were born, and the world benefited over the skies of Europe.”

Tuskegee University has been working for the last two or more years to create a formal degree program that will allow students to become certified pilots, in the tradition of the legacy of the Tuskegee Airmen. Tuskegee will now offer a bachelor's degree in aviation science with the flight option, which was recently accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges & Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC).

“Tuskegee University is proud of its heritage of training pilots who serve our country,” said Dr. Brown. “As North America faces a pilot shortage of about 130,000 in the next 20 years, our new degree program will prepare aviators to serve their country through the defense or commercial aviation industry, which is in need of rebuilding pilot programs to meet the demand.”

This initiative has received the support of Alabama Senator Katie Britt who supported a federal allocation of $6.7 million earlier this year, a recent recommendation for additional funding for FY2025, a formal partnership with Leadership in Flight Training (LIFT) Academy/Republic Airways, and the use of Moton Airfield in collaboration with the City of Tuskegee and Macon County.

“With our recent SACSCOC accreditation approval of the Aviation Science degree with flight training, we will once again – as the Tuskegee Airmen did for World War II – help the nation solve its challenge,” said Dr. Brown. “Tuskegee has answered the nation’s call with talent, ingenuity and brilliance since its founding. The university provides all military services on campus, preparing a standard of excellence that serves this nation, domestically and abroad.”

About Tuskegee University

Located in Tuskegee, Alabama, Tuskegee University is a private, state-related and nationally ranked land-grant institution that serves a racially, ethnically and religiously diverse student body of 3,000-plus students. The institution was founded in 1881 by Booker T. Washington and is one of the nation's historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs). Accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges since 1933, Tuskegee’s academic programs — many accredited by their respective accrediting bodies — currently lead to 41 bachelor’s, 16 master’s and five doctoral degree opportunities. For more information about Tuskegee University, visit www.tuskegee.edu.

About LIFT AcademyLeadership In Flight Training (LIFT) Academy is a U.S.-based commercial aviation pilot training school owned by Republic Airways Holdings Inc. Headquartered in Indianapolis, LIFT provides commercial aviation training by utilizing a curriculum that combines flight, flight simulator, and online and in-classroom training. LIFT Academy students train on a fleet of aircraft produced by Diamond Aircraft Industries, including the DA40 single-engine, DA42 twin-engine, and DA20 single-engine aircraft. Complementing this, LIFT has deployed Aviation Advanced Training Devices (AATDs) from Diamond Simulation and Frasca International. LIFT further enhances its training environment with immersive training devices (ITDs) crafted by Vertex Solutions, integrating the power of virtual reality into its curriculum. LIFT offers its graduates a defined pathway to a career as a commercial pilot at Republic Airways. LIFT Academy has locations in Indianapolis, Indiana, Columbus, Indiana, Galveston, Texas, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, and Tuskegee, Alabama. To learn more about LIFT Academy powered by Republic Airways, visit www.flywithlift.com.

About Republic Airways

Founded in 1974, Republic Airways is one of the largest regional airlines in the U.S., operating a fleet of more than 200 Embraer 170/175 aircraft. The airline provides scheduled passenger service with 900 daily flights to 80+ cities in the U.S. and Canada. Republic Airways employs over 6,000 aviation professionals and is committed to providing a top-tier experience for both employees and customers. Learn more at www.rjet.com.

Contact: Thonnia Lee, Office of Communications, Public Relations and Marketing

Humanizing Education Part I: Can Spelman College Wellness Be a Model for Change?

In 2013, Spelman College, an all-women's college and HBCU took the bold move of replacing its costly Division III sports program with an extensive wellness program for all its students. There were several arguments against the strategy, including the idea that many CEOs, including women CEOs, competed as NCAA athletes.

It was a courageous move for then-President Beverly Daniel Tatum, one that appears to have paid off.  We can find no evidence that making this transition to a more egalitarian model of physical activity has hurt the school in terms of funding. Its current endowment is approaching a half-billion dollars. Its acceptance rate is competitive, 28 percent. 

This is not to say that Spelman women and Spelman grads won't be competitive in the way they live their lives. Spelmanites will continue to excel on a number of playing fields. In 2023, there was an effort to establish lacrosse as a club sport, but this did not take away significantly from the overall focus on wellness over competition. 

Social Reality Check

Can this more egalitarian model of physical activity work at other small schools? Perhaps, but we can find no other college that has followed suit. This strategy may not even be possible with expensive Division III football programs that have perennially losing squads. One higher ed businessman who wished to remain anonymous told us that "football gets you 100 enrollment for overcompensating men who want to tell their girlfriends that they played intercollegiate football. It also brings 25 cheerleaders and a 50-piece band  and something to do on homecoming which is among the highest producing development events." 

Making changes to humanize education is not easy. Understanding the particulars of the issues, including vested interests, and social reality, is imperative.