Federal Court Backs Harvard in Ruling, Echoing Concerns Raised in ACE Brief

"We are pleased to see a federal court affirm what we always knew to be true: the Trump Administration has ignored the law in pursuing politically motivated attacks on Harvard and other institutions," Peter McDonough, ACE's general counsel, told The Washington Post.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs concluded that the administration's actions amounted to "retaliation, unconstitutional conditions, and unconstitutional coercion," and ordered the government to lift its freeze on more than $2 billion in research grants. Harvard had argued that the move imperiled life-saving research while trampling its First Amendment rights.

"A review of the administrative record makes it difficult to conclude anything other than that Defendants used antisemitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically motivated assault on this country's premier universities, and did so in a way that runs afoul of the APA, the First Amendment and Title VI," Burroughs wrote in her opinion. "Further, their actions have jeopardized decades of research and the welfare of all those who could stand to benefit from that research, as well as reflect a disregard for the rights protected by the Constitution and federal statutes."

In April, the Trump administration sent the university a series of unprecedented demands that Harvard President Alan Garber wrote "violates Harvard's First Amendment rights and exceeds the statutory limits of the government's authority under Title VI."

After Harvard declined the administration's demands, the government froze $2.2 billion in research funding. In response, Harvard filed suit.

At the time, ACE President Ted Mitchell told The New York Times: "We applaud Harvard for taking this step and look forward to a clear and unambiguous statement by the court rebuking efforts to undermine scholarship and science."

In June, ​ACE filed an amicus brief on behalf of 28 higher education associations in support of Harvard's lawsuit, warning that the administration's actions threaten the core mission of higher education and underscoring what is at stake for research, students, and the nation's future.

"Nothing less is at stake here than the ongoing ability of universities to tackle our toughest medical, scientific, and technological challenges, to train our country's workforce, and to teach our future leaders," the groups wrote. "This Court should reject the Administration's attempt to bypass Congress and the First Amendment and grant Harvard's motion for summary judgement."

The concerns voiced in the brief are directly reflected in Burroughs' decision.

"Now it is the job of the courts to similarly step up," Burroughs wrote, "to act to safeguard academic freedom and freedom of speech as required by the Constitution, and to ensure that important research is not improperly subjected to arbitrary and procedurally infirm grant terminations, even if doing so risks the wrath of a government committed to its agenda no matter the cost."

This ruling may not be the final word-the administration has said it will appeal-but for now it delivers a crucial win for higher education, academic freedom, the First Amendment, and the rule of law.

"We urge the administration to abandon these harmful attacks and instead work to restore the partnership that has made colleges and universities the engine of American innovation for decades," McDonough said.