Dhillon’s Civil Rights Division Changes Course as Lawyers Leave

For a passenger refused a ride because they use a service animal or wheelchair, federal civil-rights enforcement can mean having the government pursue a complaint that would otherwise be theirs to fight. When an investigation ends or the Justice Department withdraws its legal position from a lawsuit, that federal backing recedes—even if the person’s underlying claim survives.

That is the practical stake in the upheaval at the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. An October 11, 2026, NPR report describes a changed enforcement agenda under division chief Harmeet K. Dhillon, hundreds of attorney departures and officials’ accounts of investigations and court interventions abandoned in dozens of cases. The department disputes how those officials describe the effects and denies changing its hiring practices. Dhillon maintains that the division enforces civil-rights laws equally. ¹

The record supports neither a claim that the division has stopped all traditional enforcement nor reassurance that its former work continues undiminished. A disability-access lawsuit against Uber has survived a dismissal challenge. The government’s antisemitism complaint against Harvard did not. Those concrete proceedings help test the division’s choices, but cannot measure the work it has relinquished. ^{14 25}

Current and former officials estimate that about 300 attorneys left the division after Donald Trump returned to office, according to NPR. The Justice Department says it hired about 130 replacement attorneys. Officials also describe up to 80% of division staff departing during the exit wave. These are attributed accounts, not a verified census of the workforce today. ¹

The attorney totals and the all-staff percentage lack an established common denominator and fully specified reporting period. Subtracting them into an exact vacancy count would manufacture precision. The more consequential missing figures are staffing by enforcement section, the experience retained there and the cases assigned to replacement lawyers.

The departures were being reported well before this October account. NPR’s May 19, 2025, headline described 70% of division lawyers as leaving. That was an earlier lawyer-only report, not a competing current estimate of all staff; its numerical denominator and counting method are not established here. ⁸

The disagreement over hiring is unresolved. NPR describes ideological allies replacing departing staff, while officials say hiring practices changed and the department denies that they did. The available reporting does not establish the precise interview procedures, changes to career-staff review or political screening criteria at issue. It therefore supports a dispute about the institution’s operation—not a finding that hiring laws were violated. ¹

The policy direction is clearer than the selection process. Bloomberg Law’s September 16, 2026, account described Dhillon’s priorities as protecting gun owners and fighting illegal immigration. That dated description helps explain the administration’s agenda; it does not establish that every division section now pursues those objectives or that every discrimination case has been displaced. ⁴

Four current and former division officials told NPR that investigations were dropped and statements of interest withdrawn in dozens of cases after Trump returned to office. No complete inventory or separate totals for the two categories are established. The number of people whose claims were affected is also unknown. ¹

Those distinctions matter. Ending an investigation stops that federal inquiry. A statement of interest lets the government present its legal position in someone else’s case; withdrawing it does not itself dismiss the lawsuit or establish that the proceeding ended. Losing the government’s own lawsuit is a third, different event. Combining all three into a count of failed civil-rights cases would obscure what happened to the people involved.

NPR reports that judges dismissed more than two dozen Justice Department lawsuits demanding voter information from states. That is a substantial reported setback, but the individual cases and dismissal grounds are not established here. The count cannot show that every judge rejected the same argument, that every dismissal decided the merits or that all such litigation has ended. ¹

The Harvard case provides a more precise example. On March 20, 2026, the United States filed a Title VI enforcement action against President and Fellows of Harvard College in the District of Massachusetts, case No. 26-11352-RGS. On August 13, Judge Richard G. Stearns granted Harvard’s motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim. ^{14 16}

The Harvard Crimson reported that Stearns described the cited antisemitic incidents as “too isolated and episodic” to establish the violation alleged. This was the government’s own enforcement action—not a student-plaintiff suit or Harvard’s separate challenge to federal funding cuts. ^{23 14}

A pleading dismissal is not a trial verdict after presentation of all the evidence. It does not establish that no antisemitic incidents occurred or that Jewish students had no legitimate concerns. Whether the government could amend its complaint, whether dismissal was with prejudice and whether an appeal followed are not established. The supported conclusion is narrower: this government complaint failed. ^{14 23}

The Uber litigation offers a concrete counterweight to any claim of wholesale abandonment. The government filed United States v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-07731, in the Northern District of California on September 11, 2025. DOJ announced the lawsuit the following day. ^{24 26 28}

The complaint alleges violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act affecting passengers who use service animals or mobility devices, including stowable wheelchairs. It alleges routine refusals of service, impermissible charges and failures to reasonably modify policies to avoid disability discrimination. These remain allegations, not findings that Uber is liable. ^{26 27}

On February 6, 2026, DOJ opposed Uber’s motion to dismiss, with Dhillon listed as Assistant Attorney General. A court order denies that motion: the complaint survived a dismissal challenge, but the government has not thereby won the case. The recovered docket information extends through an August 11 filing and August 12 update; it does not establish a complete October 11 procedural status. ^{31 25 28}

This is distinct from the November 10, 2021, lawsuit challenging disability-related wait-time fees for passengers who needed more than two minutes to enter a vehicle, including time to dismantle and store a wheelchair or walker. A settlement document identifies that older proceeding as No. 3:21-cv-08735-WHA, but its execution date and terms are not established in the available excerpts. The newer ride-access allegations should not be treated as conduct already settled or proven. ^{30 33}

NPR also reports that some housing enforcement continued, though the available material does not identify those defendants, allegations or outcomes. Neither an unspecified housing portfolio nor one continuing access case supplies a measure of the division’s overall workload. Likewise, the departure and withdrawal accounts do not establish that disability and housing protection have ceased altogether. ¹

NPR: October 11 report on the division’s work and workforce. Republications: Georgia Public Broadcasting and Montana Public Radio. ^{1 2 3}

Bloomberg Law: Civil Rights Recast Under Trump’s Vision of Justice Department. ⁴

Red Line for Civil Rights: Working Backwards. The Atlantic: Harmeet Dhillon Is Not Wasting Any Time. Los Angeles Times: “Complete 180.” ^{5 6 7}

NPR: May 19, 2025, lawyer-departure report and May 12, 2025, attorney-exodus report. ^{8 13}

Related summaries and coverage: Newsgather; WDC News 6; Particle; The New Republic; DNYUZ. ^{9 10 11 12 34}

Harvard court-order copies: CourtListener, Courthouse News and two PACERMonitor documents. ^{14 16 17 21}

Harvard dismissal reporting: NPR, CBS News, PBS News, CNN, Inside Higher Ed and The Harvard Crimson. ^{15 18 19 20 22 23}

Newer Uber case: DOJ case page, dismissal order, announcement, complaint and opposition to dismissal. ^{24 25 26 27 31}

Uber litigation records and reporting: CourtListener, Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse and Associated Press. ^{28 29 32}

Older Uber wait-time-fee case: DOJ case page and settlement document. ^{30 33}