On what grounds has Harvard challenged Trump administration’s funds freeze in court?

In February, a government-appointed federal task force visited ten university campuses including that of Harvard to gather information about alleged “antisemitic incidents”. Subsequently, Harvard received letters from the administration – first announcing a “federal review” of more than $8.7 billion in federal research grants on grounds of failure to combat “antisemitic harassment”, and then asking the university to comply with a set of conditions if it wanted to continue receiving federal funding. Conditions included asking the university to stop all its diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, getting an external party to audit the student body and staff for “viewpoint diversity”, and reforming its international student admissions to “prevent admitting students hostile to American values.”

Harvard President Alan Garber rejected the administration’s demands last week, stating: “No government—regardless of which party is in power—should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.” In response, the government froze $2.2 billion in federal grants, and threatened to withdraw Harvard’s certification to enroll international students if it did not provide detailed records on foreign student visa holders.

While federal grants to other universities including the University of Pennsylvania, Columbia, Brown, and Cornell, have also been withdrawn, Harvard is the first to launch a pitched battle against the funding freeze.

In a statement addressed to members of the Harvard community on Monday, Garber referred to the funding freeze as “unlawful and beyond the government’s authority.”

Here are the grounds on which Harvard’s lawsuit has demanded that the freeze be revoked:

1. 01

   Violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution

   The First Amendment guarantees freedoms including that of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petitioning the government for redressal of grievances. Harvard's lawsuit refers to the US Supreme Court’s judgements on First Amendment violations to state that the First Amendment “does not permit the government to interfere with private actors’ speech to advance its own vision of ideological balance,” and the government may not “rely on the ‘threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion…to achieve the suppression’ of disfavored speech.” The lawsuit states that the government’s demands on Harvard cut at the core of its constitutionally protected academic freedom because they seek to assert governmental control over Harvard’s research, academic programs, community, and governance.

2. 02

   Trump administration flouts procedure for revoking federal funding

   The lawsuit states that the government has invoked protections against discrimination (alleged failures to curb antisemitism in this case) contained in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as the basis for its actions. Title VI prohibits discrimination based on race, colour and national origin in activities and programs that receive federal funds, and provides for initiating termination of these funds if the recipient is found to have discriminated.

   However, the lawsuit states that while Harvard rejects antisemitism and discrimination in all forms, and is making reforms to eradicate antisemitism on campus, the government has not engaged with Harvard regarding those ongoing efforts, and instead, announced a fund freeze.

   “Moreover, Congress in Title VI set forth detailed procedures that the Government shall satisfy before revoking federal funding based on discrimination concerns. Those procedures effectuate Congress’s desire that termination of or refusal to grant or to continue federal financial assistance be a remedy of last resort.  The Government made no effort to follow those procedures — nor the procedures provided for in…agency regulations — before freezing Harvard’s federal funding,” it states.

   The procedure it refers to is that federal funding cannot be terminated till the department/agency has advised the recipient of the failure to comply and has determined that compliance cannot be secured through voluntary means. If compliance cannot be secured voluntarily, then formal proceedings are to be initiated, “specifically a hearing”, the lawsuit says.

3. 03

   Impact of withdrawing federal funding

   Garber’s statement on Monday said that the “consequences of the government’s overreach will be severe and long-lasting.”  The lawsuit refers to the advancements that federally-funded research at Harvard has contributed to – improving cancer diagnoses, developing novel drugs to fight Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases, and brain health and trauma research for veterans.

   “Indiscriminately slashing medical, scientific, and technological research undermines the nation’s ability to save American lives, foster American success, and maintain America’s position as a global leader in innovation,” Garber’s statement says.

4. 04

   Allegations of antisemitism on Harvard’s campus

   The lawsuit refers to measures that Harvard has taken to ensure its campus is safe for Jewish and Israeli students. It points to guidelines on protests, including prohibiting protests in classrooms or places where they can interfere with the university’s functioning, and constituting a ‘Harvard Task Force’ in January 2024 to recommend ways to mitigate bias on campus. It also said that the conditions that the government sought to impose on Harvard to ensure continued federal funding curtail academic freedom, and “that curtailment is not sufficiently related to the government’s” concerns about antisemitism.

   Acknowledging that “we have unfinished business,” Garber said in his statement that “we need to ensure that the University lives up to its ideals by taking concrete steps to reaffirm a culture of free inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and academic exploration”.

   He added: “We will also soon release the reports of the Task Force on Combating Antisemitism and Anti-Israeli Bias and the Task Force on Combating Anti-Muslim, Anti-Arab, and Anti-Palestinian Bias. I established these groups last year as part of our efforts to address intolerance in our community. The reports are hard-hitting and painful. They also include recommendations with concrete plans for implementation, which we welcome and embrace. No one in our community should experience bias, intolerance, or bigotry.”