Harvard initiates lawsuit against Trump administration

Harvard initiated a lawsuit on Monday against the Trump administration, asserting that the freeze on research funding is unlawful and “completely unconstitutional,” and urging the court to revive over $2.2 billion in research funds.

The legal document, filed in the U.S. District Court in Boston, seeks to have the court nullify and revoke the funding freeze, permitting previously authorized funding to proceed, and to hinder administration attempts to restrict current or deny future funding without following the procedures outlined in federal law.

In a communication to the community on Monday, President Alan Garber stated that the suit was a response to actions taken by the government in the previous week, following the University’s dismissal of administration requests for modifications to Harvard’s governance, hiring, and admissions protocols, alongside ensuring “viewpoint diversity” through part audits of student, faculty, and staff perspectives.

Garber characterized those modifications—outlined in an April 11 correspondence from the government—as intrusive, claiming they would impose “unprecedented and unwarranted control over the University.”

Garber highlighted that some representatives of the Trump administration have claimed since April 11 that the correspondence was sent in error. However, he reiterated that other remarks and the administration’s actions since do not support that assertion.

Shortly after Harvard’s rejection of the White House’s requests, the administration reinforced its position by announcing a freeze on $2.2 billion in funding and has since indicated it is evaluating the revocation of Harvard’s tax-exempt status and threatening the opportunities for international students. Additionally, Garber noted, the administration is contemplating an additional funding freeze of $1 billion.

“Just a moment ago, we instituted a lawsuit to stop the funding freeze as it is illegal and exceeds the authority of the government,” Garber remarked. “Before imposing punitive measures, the law mandates that the federal government engage with us regarding how we are combating and will continue to combat antisemitism. Instead, the government’s demands from April 11 seek to govern whom we employ and what we educate.”

Harvard’s lawsuit claims that the First Amendment safeguards free speech from government interference intended to enforce ideological parity and prohibits the government from utilizing legal penalties or other coercive methods to silence dissenting speech.

The lawsuit further states that the government’s freeze-first approach breaches laws that delineate procedures for research fund recipients implicated in civil rights abuses. Established protocols transition from voluntary discussions to an official hearing followed by determinations. Only 30 days after the determinations are made can funding be canceled.

“These critical procedural flaws are exacerbated by the arbitrary and unreasonable nature of the Defendants’ sudden and indiscriminate choice,” the lawsuit asserted.

The filing describes a quick escalation from the government. Following initial inquiries in February from the administration’s multi-agency Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, officials from both the administration and the University planned an official campus visit for late April.

However, in late March, Harvard was notified through a letter that a review of research grants totaling $8.7 billion allocated to the University and its hospital affiliates was underway. On April 3, the University received a list of stipulations under which it could guarantee continued funding, and finally, on April 11, a letter detailed those stipulations.

Those particulars, featuring extensive and broad-ranging demands, prompted the University’s rejection alongside Garber’s assertive statement that Harvard would not negotiate regarding its autonomy or constitutional rights.

Garber expressed that the administration’s actions have endangered vital research being conducted on cancer, infectious diseases, and battlefield injuries.

With funding in uncertainty, the lawsuit posits that difficult decisions about matters such as live cell lines utilized for disease investigation and the jobs of researchers dependent on federal grants will need to be made. Unless funding is reinstated, Harvard’s research initiatives will face significant reductions.

“The repercussions of the government’s overreach will be severe and enduring,” Garber stated. “Unjustly cutting medical, scientific, and technological research undermines the nation’s capacity to save American lives, promote American success, and uphold America’s status as a global pioneer in innovation.”

Garber acknowledged that efforts to combat antisemitism still need to be made on campus. “We must ensure that the University adheres to its ideals,” he emphasized.

Although Harvard has already undertaken various initiatives in that direction, Garber mentioned the Task Force on Combating Antisemitism and Anti-Israeli Bias and the Task Force on Combating Anti-Muslim, Anti-Arab, and Anti-Palestinian Bias will soon disclose comprehensive reports.

He characterized them as “impactful and difficult” and stated they encompass recommendations with specific plans for execution.

“As a Jew and an American, I am acutely aware of the legitimate concerns surrounding escalating antisemitism. Effectively addressing it demands understanding, intention, and vigilance,” Garber stated. “Harvard is committed to this work. We will persist in confronting hatred with the urgency it necessitates while fully adhering to our obligations under the law. That constitutes not just our legal duty; it is our moral imperative.”

More related articles

• 
  

  Freezing funding halts medical, engineering, and scientific research

  Projects focus on topics from TB and chemotherapy to extended space travel, pandemic preparedness