Harvard Goes To Court To Stop Trump Nonsense

Last week, we wrote about Harvard showing a bit of institutional courage in telling the Trump administration to fuck off with its demands that the university fire certain professors, change its curriculum, and allow government oversight of campus activities. In response, Trump escalated things, as he tends to do, cutting off over $2 billion in promised funds and saying that Harvard should lose its tax-exempt status:

The IRS quickly got to work exploring just such a possibility, never mind that it’s a literal crime for the executive branch to weaponize the IRS to target any individual or entity.

For what it’s worth, there was a weird moment over the weekend when Trump officials tried to argue that the overly aggressive letter they sent Harvard was sent by accident:

It is unclear what prompted the letter to be sent last Friday. Its content was authentic, the three people said, but there were differing accounts inside the administration of how it had been mishandled. Some people at the White House believed it had been sent prematurely, according to the three people, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about internal discussions. Others in the administration thought it had been meant to be circulated among the task force members rather than sent to Harvard.

The article claimed that the administration had actually been working with Harvard officials and seemed confident that a deal could be reached (i.e., Harvard was open to capitulating) when they sent this aggressive letter, leading to Harvard’s aggressive response. Yet another sign of administrative competence.

Either way, as you’d expect, Harvard has access to some lawyers, and on Monday they sued the administration seeking an end to all this bullshit (not quite the technical legal terms, but, close enough).

Defendants’ actions are unlawful. The First Amendment does not permit the Government to “interfere with private actors’ speech to advance its own vision of ideological balance,” Moody v. NetChoice, 603 U.S. 707, 741 (2024), nor may the Government “rely[] on the ‘threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion . . . to achieve the suppression’ of disfavored speech,” Nat’l Rifle Ass’n v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175, 189 (2024) (citation omitted). The Government’s attempt to coerce and control Harvard disregards these fundamental First Amendment principles, which safeguard Harvard’s “academic freedom.” Asociacion de Educacion Privada de P.R., Inc. v. Garcia-Padilla, 490 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2007). A threat such as this to a university’s academic freedom strikes an equal blow to the research conducted and resulting advancements made on its campus.

The Government’s actions flout not just the First Amendment, but also federal laws and regulations. The Government has expressly invoked the protections against discrimination contained in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a basis for its actions. Make no mistake: Harvard rejects antisemitism and discrimination in all of its forms and is actively making structural reforms to eradicate antisemitism on campus. But rather than engage with Harvard regarding those ongoing efforts, the Government announced a sweeping freeze of funding for medical, scientific, technological, and other research that has nothing at all to do with antisemitism and Title VI compliance. Moreover, Congress in Title VI set forth detailed procedures that the Government “shall” satisfy before revoking federal funding based on discrimination concerns. 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-1. Those procedures effectuate Congress’s desire that “termination of or refusal to grant or to continue” federal financial assistance be a remedy of last resort. Id. The Government made no effort to follow those procedures—nor the procedures provided for in Defendants’ own agency regulations—before freezing Harvard’s federal funding.

These fatal procedural shortcomings are compounded by the arbitrary and capricious nature of Defendants’ abrupt and indiscriminate decision. Even before the freeze, the Government had threatened to terminate up to $8.7 billion in federal funding not just to Harvard, but also to preeminent Boston hospitals such as Massachusetts General Hospital, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston Children’s Hospital, and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. These hospitals are independent corporate entities with their own boards of directors or trustees and their own separate officers, leadership, and management. They are not under Harvard’s control. The hospitals have no control over Harvard’s enforcement of Title VI requirements, and vice versa. These hospitals have their own tax identification numbers, endowments, and accounts. And they seek and receive federal financial assistance directly from federal agencies, not through Harvard.

There’s more, but it’s a good, strong complaint.

What makes Harvard’s position particularly strong is how neatly it fits into recent Supreme Court precedent that we’ve discussed quite a bit on Techdirt. The complaint cites both Moody v. NetChoice and NRA v. Vullo, where the Court made clear that the government can’t use threats or actual coercion to pressure private entities into changing their speech or expression. Trump’s hamfisted attempts to dictate Harvard’s policies is just the latest in a long list of attacks on free expression from this administration.

It’s worth noting they have a ton of lawyers on the complaint, and their strategy is telling. The team includes Quinn Emanuel’s co-managing partner Bill Burck who was in George W. Bush’s White House (Quinn, notably, is also where Elon Musk’s favorite lawyer, Alex Spiro works). There are also lawyers from Ropes & Gray and King & Spalding. That’s three of the biggest “big law” firms all on the same filing. The King & Spalding lawyer is Robert Hur. If his name sounds familiar, he was the “special counsel” Merrick Garland appointed to investigate Joe Biden’s classified documents retention, and is known as a “Republican super lawyer.”

There are a bunch of other lawyers as well, including the named partners from the relatively new, boutique law firm Lehotsky Keller. While newer and smaller, Lehotsky Keller has been working on a number of high profile cases and are considered super well connected in the Republican world, with each of the named partners having roles in Republican politics (Keller, for example, was Solicitor General in Texas under Greg Abbott).

This isn’t just legal representation — it’s a political statement. Harvard has assembled a big list of big-name lawyers, many of them with strong Republican credentials, effectively telling Trump: “Even your own people think this is unconstitutional overreach.” It’s a move that makes it harder for the administration to dismiss the case as partisan politics (though it certainly won’t stop that argument from the true believer MAGA cultists).

The next phase will be critical. While the administration may continue pressuring Harvard, early court victories could decisively demonstrate the unconstitutionality of Trump’s attacks on academic institutions. Though some universities might still follow Columbia’s shameful example and capitulate, Harvard’s principled stand could embolden others to resist.

When the courts ultimately vindicate Harvard’s position — and they will — it will serve as more than just an institutional victory. It will reaffirm a fundamental constitutional principle: that no president, regardless of their political agenda or institutional threats, can leverage federal funding to override First Amendment protections. This reminder comes at a crucial moment, even if Trump and his allies rage against or attempt to circumvent these inevitable rulings.