Experts Say Harvard Has a Strong Case in Legal Battle Against Trump - The Harvard Crimson

Experts Say Harvard Has a Strong Case in Legal Battle Against Trump – The Harvard Crimson

2025-04-23T07:00:00Z

After Harvard sued the Trump administration Monday afternoon, legal experts and scholars say Harvard’s legal team has a strong case that may secure the University quick relief from the administration’s order to freeze federal funding.

In the lawsuit, which came nearly a week after the Trump administration froze $2.2 billion in research funding to the University, Harvard’s lawyers argued that the freeze violated procedural requirements and represented unconstitutional interference with Harvard’s academic freedom.

Seven legal experts said in interviews with and emails to The Crimson that Harvard’s claims were likely to fare well in court. Michael J. Gerhardt, a professor at University of North Carolina School of Law, called the Trump administration’s demands “egregiously illegal.”

“The Trump administration is disproportionately penalizing Harvard for whatever it thinks Harvard has done wrong, but the remedies and sanctions that the administration has sought are themselves outrageous,” said Gerhardt, who studies constitutional conflicts between presidents and Congress.

Harvard’s complaint cites three laws: the Administrative Procedure Act and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — whose procedural requirements, Harvard alleged, the Trump administration ignored — as well as the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The complaint lists six counts against nine federal departments and agencies listed as defendants: the Department of Education, Department of Justice, General Services Administration, Department of Energy, National Science Foundation, Department of Defense, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the National Institutes of Health.

“I think Harvard will win all of them,” said Geoffrey R. Stone, former dean of the University of Chicago Law School, who studies constitutional law, including the First Amendment.

The National Science Foundation declined to comment, and the other eight departments and agencies did not respond to requests for comment.

“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,” White House spokesperson Harrison Fields wrote in a statement to The Crimson.

Next Steps

Harvard has asked the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts, where the suit was filed, to vacate the funding freeze and block agencies from cutting any more funds. The suit also requests the court to expedite its resolution.

Now, the court could choose to rule that the Trump administration’s actions violated the constitution. A final ruling in Harvard’s favor would nullify the freeze order, but the court could take months to a year to arrive at a decision.

Or Harvard could ask for a preliminary injunction, which would stop the Trump administration from freezing grant funding while the court waits to make a final ruling — which could possibly end with a permanent injunction.

Harvard could alternatively request a temporary restraining order, which typically lasts for 10 days but can be extended. That could be the fastest option — but might be the least likely to succeed because Harvard would have to “show that basically the court has to intervene right away before the government even has time to respond to the allegations,” according to Andrew F. Sellars, a law professor at Boston University.

Harvard’s case will be heard by Judge Allison D. Burroughs, a Barack Obama appointee who issued a 2019 ruling in favor of the University’s use of race-conscious admissions.

Stone said the fact that the Trump administration has already stopped the flow of federal money — issuing stop-work orders on research grants worth tens of millions of dollars — means the judge will likely act swiftly in the case.

“Because the administration has withheld funds, there’s a continuing and immediate cost being imposed upon the university, and therefore, the university has a strong case for saying to the court: decide this quickly,” Stone said.

Kenneth K. Wong, a professor of education policy at Brown University and a former advisor to the U.S. Secretary of Education, said it is likely the district judge will pause the administration’s funding freeze “in the next month or so.”

“Harvard’s case is powerful on the merits and the federal district court is likely to be receptive to the request for expeditious preliminary relief,” Peter M. Shane ’74 — an emeritus professor at the Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law — wrote in an email.

Constitutional Claims

After issuing an initial set of demands to Harvard on April 3, the Trump administration sent a second, expanded list on April 11 — with which Harvard has repeatedly said it cannot comply.

The April 11 demands to Harvard included reforms to its admission and hiring procedures to prioritize ideological balance among students and faculty. The letter asked Harvard to limit the institutional power of junior faculty, along with faculty “more committed to activism than scholarship.”

And it asked Harvard to screen international applicants for their beliefs, demanding that the University reject candidates who are “hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence.”

Harvard’s lawsuit took aim at the fact that the funding freeze came as punishment for Harvard’s refusal to accede to demands that the University regulate its scholarship, admissions, and hiring in line with government criteria.

“The Government’s demands on Harvard cut at the core of Harvard’s constitutionally protected academic freedom because they seek to assert governmental control over Harvard’s research, academic programs, community, and governance,” the Monday complaint reads.

Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos ’01, a professor at Harvard Law School, said that threats to withhold federal funding if Harvard does not capitulate to these demands are “quintessential First Amendment violations.”

The administration asked Harvard to hire “a critical mass” of students and faculty who can provide “viewpoint diversity,” which would be subject to the government’s review, according to the administration’s letter.

“That would also be a pretty conspicuous violation of the First Amendment,” said Shane, the retired Ohio State law professor. “The government cannot insist that any particular combination of viewpoints be represented at some quantitative level to satisfy the government’s standard for what qualifies as intellectual diversity.”

Punishment Without Trial?

But Harvard also argued that the Trump administration’s swift imposition of the $2.2 billion funding freeze — which did not leave time for standard notification or investigation procedures — was illegal.

The complaint argues that Title VI of the Civil Right Act — the body of law around that the Trump administration has wielded most persistently in its pressure campaign against Harvard — requires a detailed administrative process before it can be used to revoke federal financial assistance over alleged civil rights violations.

Title VI states that federal assistance may only be terminated “to any recipient as to whom there has been an express finding on the record, after opportunity for hearing, of a failure to comply with such requirement.”

The law requires a thorough investigation along with “a full written report of the circumstances and the grounds” for revoking funds. In the case that failure to comply with Title VI is found, any financial penalty may not take effect until 30 days after a report is filed.

The administration’s multi-billion dollar funding freeze came only a few hours after University President Alan M. Garber ’76 announced Harvard’s rejection of the Trump administration’s demands.

Shane, the Ohio State law professor, said the speed of the Trump administration’s freeze order made it “a non-starter under federal law.”

“There’s no such thing as, legally speaking, that: ‘We, the federal government, think you are hostile to a legally protected group, and therefore we’re just summarily stopping the flow of grant funds that have already been awarded to your institution,’” Shane said.

Wong, the Brown University professor, said a proper procedural approach would involve a full investigation with a “laser focus” on alleged antisemitism violations. Along with several other experts who spoke to The Crimson, Wong said the Trump administration’s actions seemed geared toward controlling Harvard — not just investigating antisemitism.

Harvard also argued that the Trump administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act — a major federal law that provides the procedural framework for any regulatory action taken by a federal agency, such as revoking federal funding grants to universities.

The Act empowers courts to find federal agency actions unlawful if they are “arbitrary” or “capricious,” “contrary to constitutional right,” “in excess of statutory jurisdiction,” or “without observance of procedure required by law.” Essentially, it requires federal departments and agencies to follow their own regulatory procedures.

The Administrative Procedure Act has become a key tool in multiple lawsuits fighting the Trump administration’s funding cuts. It was cited by a group of universities that sued to block a new cap on Department of Energy grants. And Harvard’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors, which sued the federal government on April 11 over their review of $9 billion in Harvard’s federal funding, argued that the review violated the APA.

Harvard’s lawyers argued that the listed agencies neglected to follow their “own agency regulations” before withholding funding.

For instance, before grants from the Department of Health and Human Services may be revoked from a university, federal law requires the department to notify the school of “the reason why the additional requirements are being imposed” on grant funding along with “the method for requesting reconsideration” of the grants.

But Harvard began receiving rs almost immediately after the Trump administration issued the freeze order. And HHS officials told staff at the NIH to cut off grant payments to Harvard and other universities without giving an explanation.

Wong said he believes the Administrative Procedure Act is “a very good vehicle” for the University’s strategy.

“If somebody’s going to lose funding, there’s a process for that, and there’s been zero process conducted by the Trump administration,” Gerhart said.

“The government can’t say: ‘You committed the crime, and we’re going to put you in jail without giving you a trial,’” Stone said.

Setting a Precedent

The outcome of Harvard’s suit could have effects far beyond its own gates — especially as the University emerges as a leader in colleges’ fight to prevent Trump from conditioning their funding on far-reaching demands.

Gerhardt, the UNC law professor, said Harvard’s case “serves as a model for other institutions, because, again, Harvard’s situation, though it’s not good, it’s not unique.”

A ruling for Harvard could draw sharper lines around how the government can intervene in university affairs. And a ruling against Harvard could expand the range of actions that lawmakers can compel universities to take.

“I think this will definitely define the boundary of appropriateness in terms of governmental investigation and the boundary where an independent private university may be able to draw the line in terms of protecting their autonomy,” Wong said.

But even success for Harvard in its ongoing lawsuit does not mean the University will necessarily be able to protect its funding in the long run — especially as the Trump administration attempts to radically overhaul the structure of government funding for universities.

Stephanopoulos, the HLS professor, said that the Trump administration still has extensive discretion over future grants and contracts, meaning the government could limit future funding even if a judge rules against its attempts to rescind grants and contracts that have already been awarded.

“Even if we can win this lawsuit and unfreeze the existing funding, it’ll be substantially more difficult to challenge potential future grants that were never made,” Stephanopoulos said.

Correction: April 23, 2025

A previous version of this article misattributed a quote (“There’s no such thing as, legally speaking…”) to Geoffrey R. Stone. In fact, it was said by Peter M. Shane ’74.

—Staff writer Annabel M. Yu can be reached at annabel.yu@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @annabelmyu.

—Staff writer Sheerea X. Yu can be reached at sheerea.yu@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @_shuhree_.

Read full article

Auto-posted from news source