Collective punishment was deemed to be a war crime and a violation of international human rights law under the 1949 Geneva Convention. In other words, a group of people cannot be held accountable and subsequently punished for the actions of one individual.

Well, clearly, Tulane University didn’t get the memo.

In October of 2025, the New York Times broke a story about Tulane University’s blacklisting of Colorado Academy and three other high schools from early-decision applications. The upcoming senior class of the four schools was prohibited from applying early-decision because a senior last year had backed out of their early-decision commitment to Tulane. As Kailyn Rhone of the Times put it, “[b]reak the rules, and your schoolmates pay the price.”

But what exactly is early decision? Early decision, or ED, is the practice that many top colleges and universities in the United States utilize to offer motivated applicants the opportunity to express their interest in the school with a priority application, under the promise that, if accepted, the student would commit to attending that school. 

Now, it’s important to note that the practice of binding ED applications, unlike how it’s advertised, isn’t technically binding. As the college prep website Crimson Education makes clear, there are a few ways to get out of ED, such as citing insufficient ability to meet financial burdens (aka, the financial aid the college provides isn’t enough for you to afford tuition) or explaining major family circumstances, such as a death or other unforeseen situations, that affect your ability to pursue higher education.

Again, the perceptions around ED for millions of high school seniors and their families are skewed because ED is not a legal contract in any sense of the term.  There are no civil or criminal liabilities associated with breaking ED; in legalese, there is no consideration by both parties because admission to the school is not guaranteed, so there was no “bargain” made. It is, however, an ethical contract, meaning applicants are honor-bound to stand by it. 

Now the controversy: in lieu of legal punishment, the consequence of breaking an ED agreement comes in the form of reputational and institutional damage. Not only does this give cause for other schools, even schools to which applicants did not apply ED, to end consideration of that student’s application. What’s more, these colleges often punish the high school itself, blacklisting future applicants (as Tulane did) and making it harder to apply and thus, be admitted.

It’s in this context that a group of students lead by head plaintiff Alayna D’Amico are suing the Consortium on Financing Higher Education (a group of universities ‘committed to meeting the full demonstrated financial need of admitted students,’ herein referred to as COFHE), college admissions platforms like the Common Application, and several elite institutions, including five out of eight of the prestigious Ivy League colleges as well as many “Little Ivies,” for manipulative admissions practices that violate U.S. antitrust law.

Antitrust law in the U.S. attempts to restore free-market balance by stopping actions that could limit competition, because more competition equals more choices for the consumer. For example, two major competitors aren’t allowed to merge because they would control too much of the market, leaving consumers with no choice and no cheaper alternatives to opt for.

In recent years, cases including this one, D’Amico et al. v. COFHE et al., have asked the courts to expand antitrust law into areas that were usually considered institutional autonomy. D’Amico alleges that this ‘horizontal agreement’ to bind students to one college stops them from considering other options, so colleges don’t have to offer competitive prices for higher education; this allows colleges to reduce the financial aid they give to ED applicants, even though these students are bound to the university. Additionally, though the agreement is binding for the students, the university can withdraw its acceptance, a misrepresentation of the “binding” nature of the application.

Though the lawsuit is still in early litigation, it has brought up conversations of ethics and how to prevent the ‘manipulative’ practices of Early Decision, such as being banned by state legislatures for universities that receive federal funding and grants.

If colleges and universities stop using ED in their admissions processes, it will send shockwaves through higher education. A ban may create more equity for low-income students in their financial aid offers, and end the questionable methods of schools like Tulane in enforcing their ‘binding’ not-technically-a-contract.

For decades, Early Decision has shaped who gets access to elite education and who does not, behind the guise of commitment and enthusiasm. But as media attention and backlash grow, this facade begins to crack. Students participate because they feel they have no other choice in order to obtain admission. If higher education is meant to expand opportunity instead of constraining it, then perhaps it is time to let go of a system that binds students to a choice before they can truly comprehend the cost.