“This is an example of where the Trump administration, in its zeal to do things that it might well be able to do, cut corners,” said Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law in Cleveland. “It’s very easy for a court to rule against the government on those sorts of mistakes.”
During a hearing Monday, US District Judge Allison Burroughs agreed to a request from both sides to expedite the case. She scheduled a July 21 hearing on Harvard’s motion for summary judgment in its favor and the government’s opposition.
Advertisement
The Trump administration said it was freezing Harvard’s grants — much of them for medical and scientific research — because the university violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to protect Jewish students from discrimination and harassment.
Related: You had dozens of questions about the battle between Trump and Harvard. Our reporters answered them.
Advertisement
Harvard alleges the action came without notice or explanation. It also argues the administration’s goal is to exert improper influence over the school as part of a sweeping crackdown on elite universities to squelch ideological dissent, a violation of schools’ First Amendment rights.
“At this point, it’s very clear the administration has overplayed its hand,” Adler said. “I think it’s also clear that the breadth of what the Trump administration has threatened and some of the specific things it has demanded go beyond what the law allows.”
Robert Tsai, a Boston University law professor, also said Harvard was likely to win its suit based on its argument that the Trump administration failed to follow proper procedure before cutting off the grants, making it unnecessary for the court to focus on its First Amendment claims.
If the court does consider Harvard’s allegations that the Trump administration is violating its First Amendment rights, Tsai said the focus will be on whether the government is attempting to punish the university because of its viewpoint on diversity and other issues, not for antisemitism on campus.
Harvard would offer evidence that the administration is “totally ignoring protocols and demanding incredibly intrusive things,” Tsai said.
Related: Opinion: As Harvard stands up to Trump, history offers valuable lessons on university autonomy
“What makes it a decent argument for Harvard is they are demanding so many things that seem to really turn on Harvard’s viewpoint of hiring and curriculum,” Tsai said. “The government just simply disagrees with Harvard’s views on ideas of race and antisemitism.”
In its suit filed on April 21 in federal court in Boston, Harvard said it has been taking steps to address antisemitism on campus, then received a letter from the Trump administration’s antisemitism task force on April 11 threatening to freeze its federal funding if it didn’t comply with a list of demands.
Advertisement
Those demands included cutting diversity programs and submitting to an audit assessing the “viewpoint diversity” of its faculty, student body, staff, and leadership.
“It’s an act of intimidation,” said Nancy Gertner, a former federal judge, calling the government’s demands unprecedented. “A private college has the right to teach the way that it wishes so long as it’s in the bounds of the law. The government can’t dictate anything more than what law requires.”
She added, “If Harvard is appropriately addressing antisemitic concerns, and I think they are, that’s it. You can’t ask for more.”
Related: Trump administration sends Harvard list of demands to avoid cancellation of billions in federal funding
The suit accuses the Trump administration of violating Harvard’s First Amendment protections of academic freedom, and violating federal laws and regulations related to the investigation of institutions accused of civil rights investigations.
A spokesperson for the US attorney’s office, which is defending the government in the civil case, declined to comment on the suit.
In a statement Thursday, White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said, “President Trump is standing up for every student denied an education or safe campus because left-wing universities fail to protect their civil rights.” The statement also took issue with Harvard President Alan Garber’s public comments questioning the administration’s motivations. “Colleges are hooked on federal cash, and Mr. Garber’s public outburst only fuels the push to shut off the taxpayer money propping up their institution,” the statement said.
Harvard’s lawsuit names numerous Cabinet-level officials, including Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Attorney General Pamela J. Bondi, Secretary of Education Linda M. McMahon, and Stephen Ehikian, acting administrator of the General Services Administration.
Advertisement
Alan Dershowitz, a retired Harvard Law School professor, said Harvard “will win on some of the technicalities” and procedural issues and may get to keep grants that were previously awarded. But, he said, the university is in jeopardy of losing future grants unless it negotiates with the Trump administration.
“In the end, the federal government should fund cancer research, Alzheimer’s research” and all science-based research at Harvard, Dershowitz said. But, he added, the government “should not spend a penny” on “ideological, hard left advocacy centers that have little or nothing to do with academics.”
He predicted there would be an out-of-court compromise to avoid a lengthy legal battle, and suggested both sides have an incentive to settle the case.
“If it goes to the Supreme Court, the court will say that Harvard has no right to federal funding,” said Dershowitz.
Shelley Murphy can be reached at shelley.murphy@globe.com. Follow her @shelleymurph.
