Vancouver, Canada — In 2025, universities and colleges across the United States, Canada, and Europe are reassessing their admissions policies to align with sweeping record-sealing reforms. For decades, questions about prior arrests, charges, or criminal convictions featured prominently in admissions applications.
These questions, often phrased broadly, required applicants to disclose their past regardless of the legal outcome, leading to systemic barriers for individuals with juvenile records, dismissed cases, or minor convictions long since resolved. Today, legal reforms are changing that reality. As legislatures implement Clean Slate laws and courts expand sealing and expungement rights, applicants are now legally entitled to omit certain records when applying to higher education.
Amicus International Consulting has released comprehensive guidance for students and families, clarifying exactly what documentation can be omitted lawfully and providing a roadmap for compliance.
A New Era of Admissions Fairness
The historic practice of forcing disclosure of every brush with the legal system has long been criticized as discriminatory and disproportionate. Research shows that applicants with disclosed records face higher rejection rates, regardless of their academic qualifications. Critics argue that this practice contradicts the goals of higher education, which is meant to serve as a pathway to rehabilitation and opportunity.
By demanding disclosure of sealed or irrelevant information, universities have perpetuated cycles of inequality, disproportionately affecting minority and low-income applicants. The new reforms, however, mark a turning point. Legislators, advocacy groups, and privacy regulators are pushing universities to recognize that sealed means sealed. If the law says a record is no longer public, admissions policies cannot resurrect it.
Clean Slate Movement and State-Level Changes in the United States
In the United States, momentum is strong. Pennsylvania was the first state to enact Clean Slate laws, automatically sealing low-level misdemeanors after a set period. Michigan followed with sweeping reforms, sealing both misdemeanors and certain felonies.
Utah adopted automatic expungement for a range of offenses, with courts sealing records electronically. California passed reforms restricting when universities and employers can request information about sealed cases. These reforms establish that applicants cannot be penalized for failing to disclose records that are no longer legally accessible.
Other states are catching up. New Jersey has expanded its expungement statutes, and New York has introduced a Clean Slate Act allowing automatic sealing after a ten-year waiting period. Across these states, the effect on universities is apparent: application questions must now exclude categories of records that no longer exist in law.
Amicus has observed that institutions tied to statewide higher education systems are proactively revising their forms, while private universities are scrambling to update policies to avoid litigation.
Canadian Reforms and Youth Protections
In Canada, the legal landscape is different but converging on the same principles. The Youth Criminal Justice Act already prohibits disclosure of most juvenile records after a set period, protecting applicants from having to disclose childhood mistakes.
Recent developments at the provincial level have expanded adult expungement opportunities, allowing individuals to seal certain non-violent convictions. Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner has clarified that universities should not request disclosure of sealed or expunged records, warning that such practices may constitute a breach of provincial privacy law.
British Columbia and Quebec are also reviewing higher education admission policies to ensure alignment with privacy protections. Amicus notes that Canadian families are increasingly seeking clarification from universities, with some institutions adding explicit statements to their applications: “Do not disclose records that have been sealed, expunged, or restricted under law.”
Europe and the GDPR Dimension
In Europe, the legal protections are stronger still. Under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), universities cannot process or request information about sealed or irrelevant personal data without a lawful basis. The European Court of Justice has ruled repeatedly that academic institutions must balance data collection with necessity and proportionality. For applicants, this means they are legally entitled to omit sealed or expunged records from disclosure. In countries like France and Germany, students can challenge universities that request excessive information, filing complaints with data protection authorities. The result has been a cultural shift: admissions officers in Europe focus on academic merit, not past legal entanglements. Amicus advises international students applying to European universities to be mindful of GDPR protections, which may provide stronger safeguards than in their home countries.
Universities Adjusting Their Applications
As reforms take effect, universities are making changes. The Common Application, used by over 900 institutions in the United States, has already modified its questions to reduce the scope of criminal history inquiries. Several state university systems, including those in California and New York, have removed broad disclosure requirements.
In Canada, leading institutions such as the University of Toronto and McGill are under review by privacy regulators, prompting revisions to application materials. European universities, guided by GDPR, increasingly include disclaimers instructing applicants not to provide sealed or irrelevant information.
These policy shifts not only protect applicants but also insulate universities from potential liability. Institutions that continue to demand sealed information risk violating privacy laws, facing penalties, and damaging their reputations. Amicus emphasizes that the trend is clear: sealed means omitted.
Amicus Guidance: Documentation That Can Be Omitted Legally
Amicus International Consulting has compiled a comprehensive framework of documentation categories that students may omit without legal risk:
- Sealed Criminal Records: Arrests, charges, or convictions formally sealed under state statutes or court orders.
- Expunged Records: Incidents legally erased from the public record, including court-ordered expungements.
- Juvenile Records: Youth court proceedings and adjudications that are automatically restricted after reaching adulthood.
- Dismissed or Withdrawn Charges: Cases that did not result in a conviction and have since been sealed.
- Pardoned Offenses: Convictions formally pardoned by state or federal authorities.
- Civil Filings Tied to Sealed Matters: Family court records or other sealed proceedings that cannot be disclosed.
- Old Records Beyond Disclosure Limits: In some jurisdictions, records that “time out” after statutory waiting periods.
Applicants must be careful, however. Disclosing sealed records is not only unnecessary but may also disadvantage them. Conversely, failing to disclose records that remain public can raise concerns of dishonesty. Amicus assists clients in verifying the status of records before submission, ensuring compliance and accuracy.
Case Study 1: Graduate Admission in Michigan
A Michigan student applying to a graduate program had a misdemeanor sealed under the state’s Clean Slate law. Unsure whether to disclose, the student turned to Amicus. After reviewing the application and relevant law, Amicus confirmed the student was legally entitled to omit the record.
The application was submitted without disclosure, and the student was accepted into the program. The decision was later reinforced when the university updated its forms to exclude sealed records.
Case Study 2: Canadian Applicant with Youth Record
A Canadian applicant once involved in a youth case feared disclosure would derail their university ambitions. With guidance from Amicus, the applicant relied on the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which automatically restricted disclosure after a set period.
Amicus assisted in drafting responses to ensure clarity and compliance. The university admitted the student without prejudice, emphasizing academic qualifications over past youth issues.
Case Study 3: GDPR-Protected Applicant in France
A French student applying to a master’s program encountered a request from the admissions office to disclose all past criminal history. Amicus advised invoking GDPR’s proportionality and erasure provisions. The student filed a complaint with the university’s data protection officer, leading to a retraction of the request. The application proceeded based solely on academic merit, and the student was admitted.
Case Study 4: U.S. Expungement and Medical School
A U.S. applicant with an expunged charge applied to a competitive medical school. Unsure whether the expungement covered admissions disclosures, the applicant contacted Amicus. After reviewing the expungement order, Amicus confirmed the record was legally erased and therefore not subject to disclosure. The applicant omitted the record and was admitted.
Practical Recommendations for Students and Families
Amicus recommends that applicants facing questions about their histories take the following steps:
- Verify Record Status: Obtain court orders, certificates of sealing, or expungement documentation.
- Consult Legal and Regulatory Frameworks: Understand which laws apply in the jurisdiction where the application is submitted.
- Do Not Over-Disclose: Avoid providing information that is sealed, expunged, or irrelevant.
- Seek Clarification: If admissions questions are ambiguous, request clarification in writing.
- Maintain Transparency Where Required: Ensure accurate disclosure of records that remain legally public.
- Use Rights of Reply: Where negative press or online records persist, exercise lawful rights of reply to ensure context is available.
Broader Implications for Higher Education
These reforms represent a significant cultural shift. By reducing reliance on outdated legal history, universities reaffirm their role as engines of opportunity. The move also aligns higher education with broader societal commitments to rehabilitation and second chances. Institutions benefit as well, avoiding potential liability for privacy violations while expanding access to a diverse applicant pool.
Looking Ahead
Amicus anticipates further reforms in the coming years. More U.S. states are likely to adopt Clean Slate policies, Canada is expected to expand adult expungement opportunities, and Europe may increase enforcement of GDPR violations against universities. The future admissions landscape will likely feature standardized disclaimers instructing students not to disclose sealed records, protecting both applicants and institutions.
Contact Information
Phone: +1 (604) 200-5402
Email: info@amicusint.ca
Website: www.amicusint.ca
