Harvard University filed a lawsuit against the federal government agencies that froze its grants and contracts and threatened its tax-exempt status and ability to host international students, according to a Monday filing to the Massachusetts District Court.
The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief from the measures leveled in response to the Ivy League School’s rejection of President Donald Trump administration’s antisemitism and radicalism reform demands.
It 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 it had demonstrated its willingness to address the post-October 7 massacre antisemitism that had unfolded on its campus. The university said 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 and other American universities since the war’s outbreak, were restricted to 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.”
He 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 that the United States Department of Health and Human Services and Office of Management and Budget regulations held that awarded grants could only be withheld under specific circumstances – if the objectives or terms of the award were not being met and recipients were given a chance to correct the issue.
Harvard asserted 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 the 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 also terminate 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, he 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 as follows: by reducing the involvement of students and activist faculty; changing admission and hiring practices to embrace viewpoint diversity and rejecting discrimination based on immutable characteristics; reforming programs and schools; and banning radical student groups.
Garber rejected the proposal in an April 14 statement, which the federal government responded to with the freezing of $2.2b. in grants and over $255 million 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 $2.7m. 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.
Republican Congressman Andy Harris responded to the lawsuit on X/Twitter by arguing that the US should not be using taxpayer dollars to “subsidize the student loan debt of universities that preach, teach, and tolerate antisemitism.”
The Trump administration will respond in court to Harvard University's lawsuit seeking to block a federal funding freeze imposed after the institution rejected a list of White House demands that it said would undermine its independence, White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said on Tuesday.
Leavitt said the elite research institution put itself in the position to lose federal funding.