April 21, 2025 — Breaking Down Harvard’s Lawsuit Against the Federal Government

Earlier today, Harvard filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the government's freeze of more than $2.2 billion in funding. The 50-page complaint alleges that the freeze was an attempt to pressure the University into accepting sweeping federal demands and that it was imposed without the procedural safeguards required by Title VI and agency regulations. Harvard says the government's actions threaten not only its constitutional rights, but also its ability to operate as an independent institution.

What you need to know:

— Harvard is suing the federal government over a $2.2 billion freeze in funding, calling it unconstitutional and procedurally unlawful. 

— The University argues the freeze was imposed in retaliation for rejecting sweeping federal demands tied to Harvard's governance, hiring, admissions, and student life.  

— While the government has claimed concerns about antisemitism on campus, Harvard contends the funding at issue has no connection to any proven antisemitism-related Title VI violations (discrimination based on race, color, or national origin) and that the government bypassed the legal process required to act. 

— Harvard is asking the court to overturn the freeze or delay its enforcement, and block similar actions in the future.  

As the legal battle unfolds, Harvard has also pledged to release the long-delayed reports from its own Presidential Task Forces on Antisemitism and Islamophobia. In his message to the community, President Garber described the reports as "hard-hitting and painful," but said they contain "recommendations with concrete plans for implementation, which we welcome and embrace." 

At 1636 Forum, we're encouraged to see Harvard commit to publishing these reports. It is an essential step not only for moral accountability and institutional credibility, but also for reaffirming its commitment to academic freedom, internal reform, academic excellence, and Veritas at a moment when the stakes have never been higher. 

Moreover, due process matters — not just for Harvard, but for the broader community. A legitimate government investigation under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, conducted with thoroughness and integrity, is far more likely to result in effective improvements for Jewish students than sweeping executive actions untethered from process or fact. And as painful as it may be, transparency — whether through discovery or public release — is healthy for Harvard. It is a necessary first step to building trust, especially when trust has been lost.

Now more than ever, Harvard must show that it's capable of governing itself clearly, urgently, and in the open.

Key Takeaways & FAQs

We've read the complaint Harvard submitted to the court so you don't have to. Keep reading for:

— 1636 Forum's Key Takeaways

— What is the Lawsuit About?

— What is Harvard Asking the Court To Do?

— What Are Harvard's Main Arguments Against the Government?

— Who is Harvard Taking to Court?

If you find our newsletter valuable, please consider donating here to support 1636 Forum's mission.

Harvard is leaning heavily into the research frame — by design.

— The lawsuit opens by emphasizing the university's role in advancing "medical, scientific, technological, and other research" that benefits the national interest  Throughout the complaint, Harvard positions itself not just as an academic institution, but as a hub of federally supported innovation in cancer research, spaceflight, AI, and national security. That framing has also been front and center in Harvard's external messaging (or at least how it's been received by some…see: grim but strategic CNN banner) — a strategy that both sidesteps politically charged campus speech debates and raises the stakes beyond Cambridge.

The consequences will hit Harvard and beyond. 

— Harvard warns that the freeze will trigger a ripple effect of disruption both on campus and nationwide. Internally, the University says that it will be forced to "reduce the number of graduate students it admits" and operate "at a significantly reduced level" while struggling to maintain its research infrastructure and partnerships.

— Beyond Cambridge, the freeze could halt federally funded research at affiliated hospitals like MGH and Dana-Farber, as well as a partner institutions across the country: Harvard notes in the complaint that it issues subawards to institutions nationwide spanning St. Jude Children's Research Hospital to the University of Alabama.

— The complaint also emphasizes broader ecosystem fallout. Harvard "frequently collaborates with state and local partners on regional initiatives to fuel spending in the local economy" and as one of Massachusetts' largest employers, that the freeze will "also cause economic harm to the Boston area and the Commonwealth." 

Harvard's legal team signals a strategic choice.

— The attorneys who sent Harvard's April 14 letter to the government — Robert Hur (AB '95) and William Burck — are both prominent figures in conservative legal circles. Hur served in senior roles at the DOJ during the first Trump administration and later as special counsel investigating President Biden's handling of classified information. Burck, a former Bush White House lawyer, represented several Trump aides during Robert Mueller's Russian election interference investigation. Their involvement positions Harvard's pushback as a constitutional defense, not a partisan stand.

— The signing attorney on the complaint itself was Stephen Lehotsky (JD '02), who clerked for the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and served as a research assistant to liberal constitutional scholar and HLS professor Laurence Tribe, founder of the liberal American Constitution Society — highlighting ties across ideological lines.

Harvard acknowledges antisemitism broadly, promises its internal task force report as a roadmap.

— President Garber's message and Harvard's complaint both acknowledge antisemitism on campus, with the complaint noting reports of "vicious and reprehensible" treatment of Jewish and Israeli community members. However, neither offers specific examples of potential Title VI violations, likely due to ongoing legal considerations. Garber described antisemitism and other forms of intolerance as "evils" and recognized its rise, noting that he himself is Jewish.

— Harvard's complaint also mentions ongoing "structural reforms" aimed at combating antisemitism and enhancing viewpoint diversity but provides no details. The government's April 3 letter specifically requested "structural…action."

— Harvard emphasizes that the forthcoming Presidential Task Force on Antisemitism's report will serve as its roadmap for addressing antisemitism on campus.

Harvard is seeking a swift resolution to limit uncertainty.

— In a quiet but important detail, the complaint asks the court for an order "expediting the resolution of this action to prevent further harm to Plaintiff." The move suggests that Harvard is hoping to avoid a prolonged legal fight that could further destabilize its research programs, partnerships, and public standing. 

Harvard is suing the federal government to challenge a freeze on more than $2.2 billion in funding. The University contends that the freeze was imposed as part of a broader effort to pressure Harvard into adopting a sweeping set of federal changes to its governance, academic programming, hiring, admissions, and student group oversight. 

While the government has raised concerns about antisemitism under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, Harvard argues that the freeze applies to research unrelated to those concerns and was carried out without following the procedures required for civil rights enforcement. 

Ultimately, the lawsuit centers on whether the executive branch can use federal funding as leverage to compel institutional change — even without due process or clear legal authority. 

Harvard is not seeking monetary damages. Instead, it is asking the court for declaratory and injunctive relief — that is, to formally invalidate the funding freeze, block the government from imposing similar conditions in the future, or, at a minimum, delay the freeze from taking effect while the case is resolved.

Specifically, Harvard asks the court to:

— Overturn the $2.2 billion funding freeze.

— Declare unlawful the conditions outlined in the government's April 3 and April 11 letters.

— Postpone the effectiveness of the freeze while the case is pending.

— Prohibit the government from enforcing the freeze or imposing similar conditions going forward. 

— Bar future funding suspensions unless the government complies with the procedural requirements of Title VI and agency regulations.

— Prevent further violations of Harvard's First Amendment rights.

— Award attorneys' fees and any other relief the court deems appropriate.

Note: We've previously referred to the April 3 letter as the "April 4 letter" since it was released that day. However, Harvard's complaint calls it the April 3 letter, so we'll refer to it that way going forward.

While the complaint ultimately brings six formal legal counts – under the First Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the court's equitable powers — those counts rest on five core arguments that frame Harvard's position:

The government's demands and the funding freeze are unconstitutional (Counts 1, 2, 6).

— Harvard argues that federal officials pressured the university to change who it hires, who it admits, what it teaches, and how it governs itself — conditions Harvard calls "viewpoint-based" and incompatible with the First Amendment. This constitutional argument is central to the case and appears across multiple parts of the complaint. 

— Harvard asserts not only that the freeze constitutes unlawful agency action under federal statute but also that it violates the Constitution directly — an independent basis for relief even apart from any specific law.

— Harvard further contends that the government acted beyond its lawful powers in attempting to impose these mandates.

The freeze was retaliation for Harvard's refusal to comply (Count 1). 

— Harvard alleges that the freeze was imposed just hours after it sent its April 14 letter rejecting the government's demands, and it argues that this timing was no coincidence. The complaint ties the decision to a broader pattern of pressure, including repeated threats from federal officials – such as DOJ Senior Counsel Leo Terrell's comment that the schools would have a "change in their behavior" once they "start losing millions of dollars in federal funding."  

— According to Harvard, this sequence of events makes clear that the freeze was not a neutral enforcement but a retaliatory act aimed at punishing the university for exercising its First Amendment rights.

The Title VI justification doesn't hold up (Count 3).

— Harvard argues that while the government invoked Title VI as the legal basis for the freeze, the targeted funding has no connection to any actual findings of discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. According to the complaint, the freeze applies to completely unrelated research in areas such as medicine, technology, and national security that "aims to save American lives, foster American success, preserve American security, and maintain America's position as a global leader in innovation."

— Even if the government had identified a Title VI violation, Harvard notes that enforcement is meant to be narrow and remedial — limited to the specific program where noncompliance occurred. In this case, the government has imposed a sweeping freeze affecting unrelated grants and institutions. 

— The University contends these disconnects reveal the government's Title VI rationale is a pretext used to justify a much broader campaign of political intervention.

The government ignored the legal procedures required under Title VI and agency regulations (Counts 3, 4).

— Harvard argues that before any federal agency can cut off funding under Title VI, it must follow a specific process laid out by Congress, including providing notice of noncompliance, attempting voluntary resolution, offering a hearing, and filing a report with Congress. According to the complaint, the government did none of these things.

— Harvard further alleges that multiple agencies failed to make "an express finding on the record" which is required before freezing funds, and more broadly did not follow their own procedures as required by their regulations — including those of HHS, ED, DOJ, DOD, and others.

The freeze is arbitrary and lacks a rational basis (Count 5). 

— Harvard argues that the freeze violates the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires courts to "hold unlawful and set aside" agency actions that are "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." 

— The University alleges that federal agencies offered no reasoned explanation for freezing billions of dollars in research funding, and failed to consider the impact on ongoing projects, scientific progress, or the public interest.

The lawsuit names multiple federal agencies and officials, including the three agencies comprising the federal Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism: the Department of Health and Human Services (which oversees NIH), the Department of Education, and the General Services Administration. Others named: the Department of Justice, Department of Defense, National Science Foundation, and NASA, along with the current heads of each agency in their official capacities.

Keep emailing us your questions in the meantime, and don't forget to forward this newsletter to your Harvard community and encourage them to stay informed by subscribing here.

Note: Our most recent newsletter incorrectly stated Harvard's annual exposure could include up to "$118 billion in federal student aid." The correct figure we referenced is up to $118 million.