Harvard University filed a lawsuit against the federal government agencies that had frozen its grants and threatened its tax-exempt status and ability to host international students, according to a Monday filing to the Massachusetts District Court seeking injunctive relief from the measures leveled in response to the Ivy League School’s rejection of the President Donald Trump administration‘s antisemitism and radicalism reform demands.
The lawsuit charged that the Trump administration exceeded its statutory and constitutional authority when it engaged in arbitrary and capricious threats of withholding almost $9 billion in federal grants and contracts to coerce Harvard into surrendering control, in violation of its First Amendment rights.
Freezing federal funding to a university over alleged 1964 Title VI Civil Rights Act violations could only occur after a failure to comply by voluntary means, argued the suit. Harvard said that it had demonstrated its willingness to address the post-October 7 Massacre antisemitism that had unfolded on its campus. The university said that it had clarified prohibited conduct against Jewish and Israeli students, including the January adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism.
Harvard allegedly introduced new accountability procedures, clarified policies, and imposed meaningful discipline to prevent campus discrimination. Disruptive anti-Israel protests, which had afflicted Harvard as they had at other American universities since the war’s outbreak, were restricted from inside university buildings or where they could interfere with normal university activities or traffic, said the suit. Harvard also introduced doxing policies into its anti-bullying policies.
In a Tuesday statement Harvard University President Alan Garber reminded that he had established the Task Force on Combating Antisemitism and Anti-Israeli Bias and the Task Force on Combating Anti-Muslim, Anti-Arab, and Anti-Palestinian Bias “as part of our efforts to address intolerance in our community,” and assured that their “hard-hitting and painful” reports and “concrete plans for implementation” would soon be released.
“The government has cited the University’s response to antisemitism as a justification for its unlawful action,” said Garber. “As a Jew and as an American, I know very well that there are valid concerns about rising antisemitism. To address it effectively requires understanding, intention, and vigilance. Harvard takes that work seriously. We will continue to fight hate with the urgency it demands as we fully comply with our obligations under the law. That is not only our legal responsibility. It is our moral imperative.”
The lawsuit also argued United States Department of Health and Human Services and Office of Management and Budget regulations held that the withholding of awarded grants could only be permitted under specific circumstances — only if the objectives or terms of the award were not being met and recipients given a chance to comply to fix the issue. Harvard asserted that it had not been notified or given justification for the freezing of the grants related to why they were awarded, and existing federal regulations did not facilitate such sweeping action.
Harvard said that with little explanation or warning the federal government had in recent weeks launched a broad attack against universities engaged in “invaluable research” including Harvard, Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Princeton, Pennsylvania, and Northwestern.
The research, as also touched upon by Garber in his statement, included study of cancer, infectious diseases, toxin reduction, biotechnology, and military breakthroughs that benefited the general public. The freezing of funds would not only damage Harvard’s standing and delay advances to benefit the nation, but would result in the termination of the employment of those engaged in the research, argued the university.
“The consequences of the government’s overreach will be severe and long-lasting,” argued Garber. “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.”
April 11 US Joint Task Force letter
While Garber acknowledged that the April 11 US Joint Task Force to combat antisemitism issuance of demands may have been sent without the approval of senior officials, as reported by the New York Times, the university president said that other statements and actions had suggested otherwise, with the administration doubling down on the demands..
The April 11 letter, which superseded an earlier April 3 demand, issued 10 demands requiring Harvard to address antisemitism and radicalism by reducing the involvement of students and activist faculty, change admission and hiring practices to embrace viewpoint diversity and reject discrimination based on immutable characteristics, the reformation of programs and schools, and the banning of radical student groups.
Garber rejected the proposal in an April 14 statement, which the federal government responded to with the freezing of $2.2 billion in grants and over $255m. in contracts. That same day Trump threatened to revoke the university’s tax exempt status because it had shown itself to be a radical political actor. On Thursday the Department of Homeland Security canceled a further $2.7 million in grants, and threatened to revoke certification that would allow the university to host international students if it did not provide information on foreign students’ illegal or violent activities.
“These actions have stark real-life consequences for patients, students, faculty, staff, researchers, and the standing of American higher education in the world,” Garber said Monday.
Jesus Christ is King
