Federal Court Blocks Trump Administration's Freeze Of Grants To Harvard University: Implications For First Amendment And Title VI Enforcement

On September 3, 2025, a federal district court judge issued a decision in two related lawsuits in favor of Harvard University, blocking the Trump administration from withholding more than $2 billion in federal research grants from the university. The court found that the administration unlawfully targeted Harvard's funding in retaliation for its protected First Amendment activity, and additionally ran afoul of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI). Title VI is a federal law prohibiting schools that receive federal financial assistance from discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin.

This is the second federal court decision in just under three weeks rejecting the Trump administration's attempts to exert significant control over institutions of higher education regarding their programs, activities, and curriculum. As we have recently informed higher education clients, the prior decision found that the administration had overstepped by attempting to impose new legal obligations on schools through a Department of Education "Dear Colleague Letter," including by extending Title VI to cover classroom speech and curriculum.

The Background – From Task Force to Funding Freeze

Harvard University is a private research university that was founded in 1636, becoming the first college in the American colonies. Harvard has significant research programs funded in part by federal grants totaling billions of dollars annually.

Pursuant to President Trump's Executive Order 14188, on February 3, 2025, DOJ announced the formation of a multi-agency Task Force to Combat Antisemitism (the Task Force), which included representatives from the U.S. Department of Education and other federal agencies. President Trump's Executive Order noted an "unprecedented wave of vile anti-Semitic discrimination, vandalism, and violence against our citizens, especially in our schools and on our campuses," and directed executive departments and agencies to submit a report on actions that might be used to combat anti-Semitism.

On March 31, 2025, the Task Force notified Harvard and issued an announcement that it was reviewing more than $8.7 billion in federal funding to Harvard "to ensure the university is in compliance with federal regulations, including its civil rights responsibilities." Linda McMahon, the Secretary of Education, stated that Harvard had failed "to protect students on campus from anti-Semitic discrimination — all while promoting divisive ideologies over free inquiry." The Task Force followed up in a letter dated April 3, 2025, stating that Harvard had "fundamentally failed to protect American students and faculty from antisemitic violence and harassment in addition to other alleged violations of Title VI and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." The Task Force identified several necessary steps that Harvard must undertake to continue receiving federal funds, including additional oversight and accountability for "biased programs that fuel antisemitism." Unlike in past efforts by the federal government to curb antisemitism on campuses, the Task Force did not identify specific instances of antisemitism or explain how Harvard had failed to respond. Moreover, although the Task Force's announcements were related to purported findings that Harvard had failed to protect students and faculty from antisemitism, the Task Force directed Harvard to end seemingly unrelated "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs," which it alleged to have fueled "division and hatred." In another follow-up letter dated April 11, 2025, the Task Force accused Harvard of failing to live up to "intellectual and civil rights conditions," and provided an additional list of terms that Harvard would need to agree to, in order to continue receiving federal financial assistance. Among other items, the Task Force directed Harvard to restructure its governance to empower leaders "committed to the changes" identified by the Task Force, reform its hiring and admissions processes, and take steps to increase what it characterized as "viewpoint diversity."

While other educational institutions facing similar funding threats opted to enter into resolution agreements with the Trump administration, Harvard rejected the demands in a letter dated April 14, 2025. It noted that the demands violated the First Amendment, stating that it would "not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights." In an accompanying statement, Harvard's president, Alan M. Garber, wrote that "No government—regardless of which party is in power—should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue."

Within hours of Harvard's refusal to comply, the Trump administration announced a freeze on $2.2 billion in multi-year grants and $60 million in multi-year contracts to Harvard and subsequently began issuing stop-work orders on such grants. President Trump also threatened on social media to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status. In May 2025, several federal agencies issued letters terminating grants with Harvard relating to medical, scientific, technological, and other projects.

As a result of the government's actions, Harvard and other organizational plaintiffs filed a lawsuit.

In the meantime, the Trump administration remained undeterred in its actions against Harvard. On May 22, 2025, the administration moved to terminate Harvard's Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) certification, disallowing Harvard to "enroll foreign students" (a significant percentage of its total enrollment) and stating that "existing foreign students must transfer or lose their legal status." On June 30, 2025, despite already having implemented severe consequences, the Task Force notified Harvard that it had "concluded its investigation" and found that Harvard was in "violent violation" of Title VI. Specifically, the Task Force issued a Notice of Violation finding that Harvard had been deliberately indifferent, and in some circumstances, had been a willful participant in antisemitic harassment of Jewish students, faculty, and staff. On July 9, 2025, the administration notified the New England Commission of Higher Education that Harvard had violated federal anti-discrimination laws and therefore may fail to meet the standards for accreditation set by the Commission. The Task Force stated that it "expects" the Commission to take action and keep the administration fully informed of its efforts.

Key Findings from the Decision

U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs found that Harvard's April 14 letter constituted First Amendment-protected conduct and was a substantial and motivating factor in the government's decision to freeze and terminate Harvard's federal financial assistance. Accordingly, Harvard was entitled to summary judgment on its First Amendment retaliation claims as the government "impermissibly imposed unconstitutional conditions on Harvard's receipt of federal funds." The judge noted that nothing supported the government's contention that it was primarily or even substantially motivated by combating antisemitism—noting that the government did not review or gather data about antisemitism at Harvard but rather made a swift and sudden decision to terminate funding. The judge further pointed out that numerous government officials made public statements demonstrating that the "onslaught against Harvard was much more about promoting a governmental orthodoxy in violation of the First Amendment than about anything else, including fighting antisemitism." In support of her finding, the judge specifically noted that Secretary McMahon wrote in her May 5, 2025 letter that the Harvard Corporation is "run by strongly left-leaning Obama political appointee Penny Pritzker, a Democrat operative, who is catastrophic and running the institution in a totally chaotic way," while also taking shots at Harvard for hiring "failed" Democratic Mayors Bill de Blasio and Lori Lightfoot to "supposedly teach," likening this to "hiring the captain of the Titanic to teach navigation to future captains of the sea." Similarly, she referenced President Trump's statements on social media that Harvard was a "Far Left Institution" that hired "almost all woke, Radical Left, idiots and 'birdbrains'."

The court also found in favor of plaintiffs' First Amendment claim based on a theory of unconstitutional coercion, which holds that a government official cannot directly or indirectly coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on the government's behalf. The judge noted that the federal government "unconstitutionally sought to force Harvard to better manifest the government's favored worldview." Specifically, the federal government had threatened Harvard to hire faculty and make curricula and research choices that better aligned with the government's preferred viewpoints, to the detriment of professors and researchers with competing views.

The court also found that the government failed to comply with the specific procedures required by Title VI in order to terminate federal financial assistance. Before such termination, Title VI requires notification to the appropriate persons of a violation and a determination that compliance cannot be secured by voluntary means. Next, if voluntary compliance is not possible, the government may terminate financial assistance only after an express finding on the record after an opportunity for a hearing. Lastly, the head of the federal department or agency must file a full written report with the relevant committees in Congress and may only terminate the funding after thirty days have elapsed since filing the report. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-1. Relatedly, the court found that the government violated the procedural requirements of the APA because its actions were arbitrary and capricious.

The judge ended with a scathing indictment of the government's actions. While noting that antisemitism is intolerable and acknowledging that Harvard admitted it should have done a better job in dealing with antisemitism on campus, the judge concluded that the government "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." The judge wrote that the Trump administration's "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." The federal courts, she said, needed "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."

Takeaways and Implications for Higher Education and Title VI Compliance

Courts have continued to find that higher education institutions have valid constitutional and procedural defenses in the face of actions taken by the Trump administration. However, higher education clients should be aware that even with strong legal arguments, the process can be costly. Not every college or university will have the resources to fight a protracted and drawn-out battle while the federal government attempts to strip funding and exert pressure in other ways. Institutions should anticipate that the Trump administration will use every tool in its arsenal to assert its influence. Higher education clients are advised to take a proactive approach to review their programs, activities, and policies for compliance with Title VI and Title IX.

Moreover, this legal saga is not over. A White House spokesperson said that the administration would "immediately appeal" the court's decision and declared that Harvard "remains ineligible for grants in the future," despite the judge's ruling. In addition to filing an appeal, the federal government could still resort to more traditional methods for cutting off funding to Harvard and other educational institutions, and the judge specifically noted that the courts would not block the Trump administration officials "from acting within their constitutional, statutory or regulatory authority." For example, the administration may begin to follow the procedures outlined in Title VI, as explained above, as well as its own procedures as set forth in the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights' Case Processing Manual — which sets forth specific timelines for investigations, negotiations of voluntary resolutions, and enforcement actions — processes that were not utilized in the Harvard case which progressed at breakneck speed. But even following the regulatory and traditional procedures may come as a welcome relief to colleges and universities dealing with investigations or otherwise attempting to navigate these challenging legal issues.

For educational institutions that have already entered into agreements as a result of similar pressures, the decision also suggests a potential avenue for relief and/or defenses against enforcement of such agreements, citing case law for the proposition that just because an institution agrees to an unconstitutional condition, even in a settlement, this does not render the bargain constitutional. It remains to be seen what, if any, actions other prominent educational institutions may take as a result of the recent decision.

Higher education clients and their counsel should monitor developments, as this area is changing rapidly. It is critical to review all recent lawsuits, legal decisions and announcements from the Trump administration to ensure compliance with all federal laws and regulations. Higher education clients should consult with counsel to ensure that their policies and practices for preventing and remedying antisemitism, and their programming and activities more generally, comply with all federal civil rights laws and regulations.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.