On April 21, Harvard University sued the Trump Administration over the suspension of $2.2 billion in federal research grants on the basis of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and a failure to address antisemitism at the institution. Harvard named in its complaint the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, a number of other federal cabinet departments that fund research at Harvard, the National Science Foundation, and the individuals leading those entities.
Previously, Harvard had a long history of discriminating against Jewish people both in admissions and hiring. Following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack from Gaza, and before any response from Israel, a group of Harvard student organizations issued statements supporting Hamas and condemning Israel. Subsequently, pro-Palestinian demonstrators actively harassed Jewish students.
The Antisemitism Lawsuits
In January 2024, Shabbos “Alexander” Kestenbaum and Students Against Antisemitism filed a suit against Harvard alleging that it failed to take sufficient steps, as required under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, to protect its Jewish students on campus.
In May 2024, the Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and Jewish Americans accused Harvard of “deliberately” ignoring antisemitism on campus. The two suits were consolidated, and Harvard eventually settled with everyone except Kestenbaum. Harvard is using discovery in the pending suit to uncover any communication between Kestenbaum and Republican or conservative politicians.
Steps Lead to the New Lawsuit
Kestenbaum campaigned for Trump in the 2024 elections, and the Trump Administration has taken a number of steps, including Executive Orders, to enforce Title VI to better protect Jewish students on campuses.
The Trump Administration formed a Joint Task Force on Antisemitism, which began to negotiate with Harvard regarding possible reforms to address antisemitism as well as alleged discriminatory actions taken in the name of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
On April 3, the Task Force sent Harvard a letter with nine bullet points that “outlines immediate next steps that we regard as necessary for Harvard University’s continued financial relationship with the United States government.” Harvard was initially open to further discussion of the government’s expectations.
On April 11, the Task Force sent a detailed list of demands to Harvard. These include appointing an external monitor “to audit those programs and departments that most fuel antisemitic harassment or reflect ideological capture.” International students must be screened for extremist views. Harvard’s current conduct process must be replaced by “a disciplinary process housed in one body that is accountable to Harvard’s president or other capstone official; and removing or reforming institutional bodies and practices that delay and obstruct enforcement, including the relevant Administrative Boards and FAS Faculty Council.” Another independent external monitor would be hired “to audit the student body, faculty, staff, and leadership for viewpoint diversity.”
President Alan Garber told the Trump Administration that he would not agree to such terms, and four hours later, various federal agencies took steps to freeze $2.2 billion in research grants and $60 million in long-term contracts. In response, on April 21, Harvard filed a 51-page lawsuit.
The authors of Harvard’s complaint include William A. Burck, who served as Ethics Counsel for the Trump Organization, and Robert Hur, who served as Special Counsel on the Biden classified documents case.
Harvard’s complaint accuses the Trump administration of retaliatory overreach, stating, “The Government has not — and cannot — identify any rational connection between antisemitism concerns and the medical, scientific, technological, and other research it has frozen that aims to save American lives, foster American success, preserve American security, and maintain America’s position as a global leader in innovation.” The government cannot use the suspension of research grants to six Boston area hospitals as leverage to force a violation of First Amendment rights in an unrelated part of the university. Finally, the agencies acting to freeze Harvard’s grants must follow the Administrative Procedure Act and cannot act arbitrarily or capriciously. In other words, the government should give Harvard due process in an administrative hearing first, and then take remedial actions such as a grant freeze only after such a hearing.
Following that, President Trump threatened to start additional proceedings to remove Harvard’s tax-exempt status.
On April 28, Massachusetts District Court Judge Allison D. Burroughs held a status conference on this case and set a hearing for July 21, Harvard did not request a temporary restraining order, so the Judge did not protect Harvard from the grant freeze while the case is pending. Motions for summary judgement are due on June 2.
Nationwide Support for Harvard
On April 22, Cornell President Michael Kotlikoff and a group of over 300 college and university presidents signed a letter in support of Harvard’s position in the litigation. The American Association of Colleges and Universities organized “A Call for Constructive Engagement”. The document is the first time current presidents have spoken out collectively in such numbers about these issues. It notes,
“We are open to constructive reform and do not oppose legitimate government oversight. However, we must oppose undue government intrusion in the lives of those who learn, live, and work on our campuses.”
It promises, “Our colleges and universities share a commitment to serve as centers of open inquiry where, in their pursuit of truth, faculty, students, and staff are free to exchange ideas and opinions across a full range of viewpoints without fear of retribution, censorship, or deportation.” It concludes, “The price of abridging the defining freedoms of American higher education will be paid by our students and our society. On behalf of our current and future students, and all who work at and benefit from our institutions, we call for constructive engagement that improves our institutions and serves our republic.”
Dartmouth was the only Ivy League school to refuse to sign the letter. However, Dartmouth is a plaintiff in the suits against NIH and the Department of Energy challenging the 15% cap on research grant overhead.
Sen. Charles Schumer told the press about the lawsuit, “Right on. Give them no quarter; They’re attempting to destroy Harvard.”
Gov. Maura Healey of Massachusetts said, “I applaud Harvard for filing its lawsuit against the Trump administration,” Healey said. “The Trump administration continues to do things that are illegal, that are unconstitutional, and what Harvard is calling out is the illegal actions by the Trump administration — who has essentially sought to bully and silence critics, those who disagree with the administration. Harvard said ‘enough is enough’ and I’m proud to stand strongly in support of Harvard.”
On April 23, Harvard President Alan Garber was interviewed on NBC News explaining why Harvard sued. Garber said, “We cannot compromise on basic principles like defense of our First Amendment rights.” In response, a White House spokesman said, “President Trump is standing up for every student denied an education or safe campus because left-wing universities fail to protect their civil rights.”
