The Education Department has opened up a civil rights investigation into Harvard University’s legacy admissions as both sides mobilize following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn affirmative action.

Whereas opponents of affirmative action are attempting to ensure proper enforcement at universities and eyeing employment next, supporters of racial preferences in admissions have zeroed in to legacy admissions.

“The U.S. Department of Education has notified Lawyers for Civil Rights that it has formally launched the federal civil rights investigation requested,” wrote the legal group which filed the complaint on behalf of the Chica Project, the African Community Economic Development of New England, and the Greater Boston Latino Network.

A growing list of schools are voluntarily dropping the practice by which children of alumni and staff are given a preference, including Wesleyan University, MIT, Amherst College, and Carnegie Mellon University.

However, according to Lawyers for Civil Rights, Chief Justice John Roberts’s point that “eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it” applies to legacy admissions and the Department of Education should promptly act to end the practice.

Lawyers for Civil Rights argued in its complaint that nearly 70 percent of donor-related applicants are white, and nearly 70 percent of legacy applicants are also white. The former group were nearly 7 times more likely to be admitted compared to non-donor-related applicants; and legacy applicants were nearly 6 times more likely to be admitted compared to nonlegacy applicants, according to the complaint.

Thus, argues Lawyers for Civil Rights, the advantages and disadvantages built into the practice for applicants of different races is in violation of Title VI, which prevents discrimination on the basis of “race, color, or national origin.”

This argument has been challenged both by those who think legacy admissions is an unfair practice that should be done away with and those who don’t.

According to Edward Blum, who led the charge against affirmative action in the Harvard and UNC cases and opposes all unfair admissions practices, ending legacy admissions would be a “wonderful endeavor.” However, Blum expects the effort to force schools to do so will fail, arguing in a recent press conference it is not actionable.

Kansas attorney general Kris Kobach concurred in an interview with National Review. Kobach explained that the Court’s decision in the Harvard and UNC cases does not speak to legacy admissions and the fact pattern is different.

Many companies pursue affirmative action policies in hiring, firing, promotion, and contracting in a similar way to universities, Kobach explained. On the other hand, legacy pools are often diverse and the preference afforded to legacy applicants is not directly tied to race.

While opening the investigation does not imply a determination on the merits, it does indicate an appetite to assess the practice.

Harvard spokeswoman Nicole Rura told the New York Times in an email it is reviewing its admissions policies to make sure they comply with the law.

“Following the Supreme Court’s recent decision, we are in the process of reviewing aspects of our admissions policies to assure compliance with the law and to carry forward Harvard’s longstanding commitment to welcoming students of extraordinary talent and promise who come from a wide range of backgrounds, perspectives, and life experiences,” Rura explained.