Harvard University is set to argue in federal court that the Trump administration’s freeze of over $2 billion in federal grants and contracts is unlawful and should be lifted.
On Monday, the case will be heard in U.S. District Court in Boston, where Harvard’s attorneys contend that the funding cuts threaten essential research in vital fields such as medicine, science, and technology.
The lawsuit aims to prevent the Trump administration from using federal funding as leverage to influence academic decisions at the university.
The funding freeze is framed by the administration as a response to Harvard’s alleged failure to address antisemitism on its campus, as dictated by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
The hearing is expected to be completed in one day, with Harvard seeking a summary judgment to expedite the process.
However, experts suggest that regardless of the immediate outcome, the case is likely to lead to protracted legal battles and possible appeals from either party.
Though Harvard stands as the sole institution involved in this particular legal action, many colleges and universities across the nation are closely monitoring the proceedings, as dozens of other institutions have also experienced frozen federal grants.
Jodie Ferise, a higher education lawyer in Indiana, points out that the repercussions of this case will resonate throughout the landscape of higher education, impacting various institutions regardless of their size.
Ferise remarked, “There is nothing different about Harvard University than there is about some Midwestern, smaller private college.
Everyone is watching and worrying about the extent to which the federal government is seeking to control the higher education sector.”
In its court filings, Harvard presents several key arguments against the Trump administration’s actions.
First, the university’s legal team claims that the administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by changing funding procedures without proper justification.
They assert that the government deviated from established protocols that outline how to revoke federal funding based on discrimination concerns.
Harvard further argues that the federal government has not demonstrated a rational connection between claims of antisemitism and the suspension of vital research funding.
“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 complaint reads.
Additionally, the university alleges that its First Amendment rights are being infringed upon, arguing that the government should not interfere with academic freedom to promote its ideological agenda.
Harvard claims the administration’s actions dictate how the university manages hiring, student admissions, and access to student records without proper legal procedures.
On the other hand, the Trump administration’s stance labels Harvard’s actions as negligent towards Jewish students.
After hours of failed negotiations regarding a list of demands aimed at addressing antisemitism, the Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism—a coalition of several federal agencies—imposed the funding freeze.
Harrison Fields, a spokesperson for the White House, remarked, “The gravy train of federal assistance to institutions like Harvard, which enrich their grossly overpaid bureaucrats with tax dollars from struggling American families, is coming to an end.
Taxpayer funds are a privilege, and Harvard fails to meet the basic conditions required to access that privilege.”
The administration argues that Harvard’s alleged shortcomings in combating antisemitism and engaging in discriminatory practices through Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives justify the funding cuts.
Experts note that while the federal government has grounds to act in such matters, the key legal question will be whether the Trump administration adhered to the appropriate procedures in executing this funding freeze.
The $2 billion in question supports over 900 research initiatives at Harvard and its affiliated organizations.
These projects encompass crucial areas such as Alzheimer’s prevention, cancer research, military advancements essential for national security, and studies focused on the mental health effects of school closures.
Professor Kari Nadeau, who leads research at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, expressed concern regarding the funding cut she faced, which amounted to about $12 million for a critical study on reducing severe allergies in infants.
“We’ve had to stop our studies and our work,” Nadeau lamented, emphasizing the cascading negative impact on not just their research team, but also the families relying on their findings.
She highlighted the safety implications for children involved in a long-term clinical trial that was initially set to last seven years.
“When you take a therapy away from people, and especially in this case, children, and you put them at risk for a near-fatal disease like food allergy, that is a safety issue,” Nadeau stated.
“These families could be put into additional harm.”
The future of her project, along with many others, hinges on the outcome of this case, and she has expressed cautious optimism about the ruling.
While some experts suggest Harvard may prevail in the Boston court, they also caution that this could only represent the start of a lengthy legal battle.
Ferise remarked, “Will Harvard win in Boston? There’s a good chance of that.
But is that gonna settle the matter? That’s probably not the case. It will go to an appeal, it will go to the Supreme Court.
So a win, while it would be welcome to colleges, won’t feel like the end of the story.”
image source from：wfae
