Government's Cancelling Harvard Contracts Violated First Amendment, Judge Rules

From today's decision by Judge Allison Burroughs (D. Mass.) in President & Fellows of Harvard College v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.:

Harvard asserts that the Defendants' actions in this case "violated Harvard's First Amendment rights in at least two ways: 1) by retaliating against Harvard based on the exercise of its First Amendment rights, and 2) by imposing content- and viewpoint-based burdens on those rights through the imposition of funding conditions that are unrelated to any legitimate government interest in combating antisemitic harassment or otherwise." Because of this, Harvard contends that "[t]he Freeze Orders and Termination Letters should be vacated and set aside, and any further similar action against Harvard should be permanently enjoined." …

The court concluded that the government's actions were unconstitutional retaliation for Harvard's exercise of First Amendment rights:

Harvard engaged in constitutionally protected conduct 1) when it refused the terms set forth in the April 11 Letter, which sought to control viewpoints at Harvard, and 2) when it filed this lawsuit. Defendants do not dispute that the latter constitutes protected conduct. As to the April 11 Letter rejection, there is "a zone of First Amendment protection for the educational process itself," that encompasses not only "the independent and uninhibited exchange of ideas among teachers and students," but also Harvard's "autonomous decisionmaking." The rights protected by the First Amendment include the right to "manage an academic community and evaluate teaching and scholarship free from [governmental] interference," as well as Harvard's "prerogative 'to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach'" and what is taught in the "college classroom."

Defendants' April 11 Letter, on its face, was directed at these core freedoms, and Harvard's April 14 rejection, on its face, was aimed at preserving them. The April 11 Letter stated, in no uncertain terms, that the letter would constitute an "agreement in principle that w[ould] maintain Harvard's financial relationship with the federal government" but only if Harvard agreed to "audit the student body, faculty, and leadership for viewpoint diversity," report that audit to the government, and "hir[e] a critical mass of new faculty" and "admit[] a critical mass of students … who will provide viewpoint diversity."

It further required Harvard to "abolish all criteria, preferences, and practices, whether mandatory or optional, throughout its admissions and hiring practices, that function as ideological litmus tests;" to audit "programs and departments that … reflect ideological capture;" to "immediately shuttter all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, committees, positions, and initiatives … including DEI-based … speech control policies," and to demonstrate that it had done so "to the satisfaction of the federal government." In brief, the April 11 Letter purported to require Harvard to overhaul its governance, hiring, and academic programs to comport with the government's ideology and prescribed viewpoint….

Based on this administrative record, the Court is satisfied that Harvard's protected conduct was a substantial and motivating factor in the Freeze Orders and Termination Letters. Defendants contend, however, that Harvard's retaliation claim nonetheless fails because "the agencies' terminations are explained by a nonretaliatory purpose: opposing antisemitism,"  such that the government "would have terminated" the grants irrespective of Harvard's viewpoints. This argument does not carry the day.

Defendants have failed to meet their burden to show they acted with a non-retaliatory purpose for several reasons. First, as discussed, the April 11 Letter specifically conditioned funding on agreeing to its ten terms, only one of which related to antisemitism, while six related to ideological and pedagogical concerns, including who may lead and teach at Harvard, [HHSHarv_00000098–99 ("Governance and leadership reforms;" "Merit-Based Hiring Reform")], who may be admitted, [HHSHarv_00000099 ("Merit-Based Admissions Reform;" "International Admissions Reform")], and what may be taught, [HHSHarv_00000099–100 ("Viewpoint Diversity in Admissions and Hiring;" "Discontinuation of DEI")]. Additionally, Defendants' argument ignores that Harvard's April 14 letter rejected only the conditions it viewed as infringing on its First Amendment rights and, in fact, specifically agreed to discuss measures aimed at combatting antisemitism, [HHSHarv_00000104–105 ("Harvard remains open to dialogue about what the university has done, and is planning to do" to combat antisemitism)], an offer Defendants similarly disregarded when instituting the first funding freeze on the basis of "Harvard's statement[s]" hours later.

Moreover, although combatting antisemitism is indisputably an important and worthy objective, nothing else in the administrative record supports Defendants' contention that they were primarily or even substantially motivated by that goal (or that cutting funding to Harvard bore any relationship to achieving that aim). As discussed further infra, before the April 14

Freeze Order, Defendants had announced a funding review consistent with the goals of combatting antisemitism; the record, however, does not reflect that Defendants engaged in such a review, weighed the value of any grant, gathered any data regarding antisemitism at Harvard, or considered if and how terminating certain grants would improve the situation for Jewish students at Harvard.

Rather, all that Defendants learned between March 31 and April 14, 2025 was that Harvard would not capitulate to government demands that it audit, censor, or dictate viewpoints of staff and students. The fact that Defendants' swift and sudden decision to terminate funding, ostensibly motivated by antisemitism, was made before they learned anything about antisemitism on campus or what was being done in response, leads the Court to conclude that the sudden focus on antisemitism was, at best (and as discussed infra), arbitrary and, at worst, pretextual.

Thus, the Court is satisfied that Harvard is entitled to summary judgment on its claim for First Amendment retaliation on the face of the administrative record. The Court would be remiss, however, if it did not note that the summary judgment record also contains numerous exhibits and undisputed facts that go beyond the administrative record that speak to Defendants' retaliatory motive in terminating Harvard's funding.

Although Defendants now contend that Harvard's April 14 rejection and subsequent lawsuit had nothing to do with their decision to cut its funding, numerous government officials spoke publicly and contemporaneously on these issues, including about their motivations, and those statements are flatly inconsistent with what Defendants now contend. These public statements corroborate that the government-initiated onslaught against Harvard was much more about promoting a governmental orthodoxy in violation of the First Amendment than about anything else, including fighting antisemitism.

For instance, in the forty-eight hours following the April 14 Freeze Order, the President took to social media multiple times to talk about Harvard. He posted on Truth Social that Harvard is "a JOKE" that "should no longer receive Federal Funds." His stated concerns (which would later be echoed in the May 5 Freeze Order) were untethered from antisemitism and instead based entirely on Harvard's "hiring almost all woke, Radical Left, idiots and 'birdbrains' who are only capable of teaching FAILURE to students," including "two of the WORST and MOST INCOMPETENT mayors in the history of our Country," referring to Democratic mayors Bill de Blasio and Lori Lightfoot.

This post echoed his comments from a day earlier, when he opined, again on Truth Social, that "[p]erhaps Harvard should lose its Tax Exempt status and be Taxed as a Political Entity." Again, that post did not reference antisemitism explicitly but rather was focused on Harvard's "pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting 'Sickness[.]'" It was not until nearly ten days later that the President would call Harvard "Anti-Semitic," doing so in a Truth Social post that, in the same breath, called Harvard a "Far Left Institution" and a "Liberal mess, allowing a certain group of crazed lunatics to enter and exit the classroom and spew fake ANGER AND HATE."

A similar barrage followed Harvard's decision to litigate rather than settle this case, with Administration officials being clear about the connection between that decision and the funding cuts. In particular, on May 28, 2025, the Secretary of Education summarized the situation with Harvard, stating:

When we looked at different aspects of what Harvard was doing relative to anti- Semitism on its campuses they were not enforcing Title VI the way it should be. And we had conversations with President Garber and I expected that we would have more, but Harvard's answer was a lawsuit so that's where we find ourselves   I think the President is looking at this as, OK, how, how can we really make our point[?]

The same day, during an interview in the Oval Office, the President himself said that Harvard is "hurting [itself]" by "fighting," contrasting Harvard with Columbia, who he noted "has been … very, very bad … But they're working with us on finding a solution." He declared that Harvard "wants to fight. They want to show how smart they are, and they're getting their ass kicked."  His conclusion: "[E]very time [Harvard] fight[s], they lose another $250 million."

The court also held, for similar reasons, that "Defendants impermissibly imposed on Harvard content- and viewpoint- based funding conditions that were unrelated to any legitimate government interest."

"[The Supreme] Court has made clear that even though a person has no 'right' to a valuable governmental benefit and even though the government may deny him the benefit for any number of reasons … [i]t may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes … his interest in freedom of speech." … "[A] funding condition can result in an unconstitutional burden on First Amendment rights." Moreover, it is worth noting that the conditions here are particularly concerning because, as discussed, many of them were based on Harvard's "particular beliefs," NRA v. Vullo (2024), and sought to dictate the content of speech on campus and the "particular views taken by speakers on [particular] subject[s]," Rosenberger v. Rectors (1995). "On the spectrum of dangers to free expression, there are few greater than allowing the government to change the speech of private actors in order to achieve its own conception of speech nirvana." Moody v. NetChoice, LLC (2024).

The court also held that the government's action also constituted unconstitutional coercion in violation of the First Amendment. Finally, from the Conclusion:

This case, of course, raises complicated and important legal issues, but, at its core, it concerns the future of grants sponsoring research that promises to benefit significantly the health and welfare of our country and the world. Through the government's statements and actions, the fate of that research has now become intertwined with the issue of antisemitism at Harvard.

Antisemitism, like other types of discrimination or prejudice, is intolerable. And it is clear, even based solely on Harvard's own admissions, that Harvard has been plagued by antisemitism in recent years and could (and should) have done a better job of dealing with the issue. That said, there is, in reality, little connection between the research affected by the grant terminations and antisemitism. In fact, 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. 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….

The First Amendment is important and the right to free speech must be zealously guarded. Free speech has always been a hallmark of our democracy. The Supreme Court itself has recognized that efforts to educate people, change minds, and foster tolerance all benefit from more open communication, not less. As Justice Brandeis wrote in the seminal case of Whitney  ​California (1927), "[i]f there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence," or, in this case, the forced adoption of a political orthodoxy. As pertains to this case, it is important to recognize and remember that if speech can be curtailed in the name of the Jewish people today, then just as easily the speech of the Jews (and anyone else) can be curtailed when the political winds change direction.

Defendants and the President are right to combat antisemitism and to use all lawful means to do so. Harvard was wrong to tolerate hateful behavior for as long as it did. The record here, however, does not reflect that fighting antisemitism was Defendants' true aim in acting against Harvard and, even if it were, combatting antisemitism cannot be accomplished on the back of the First Amendment. We must fight against antisemitism, but we equally need to protect our rights, including our right to free speech, and neither goal should nor needs to be sacrificed on the altar of the other.

Harvard is currently, even if belatedly, taking steps it needs to take to combat antisemitism and seems willing to do even more if need be. Now it is the job of the courts to similarly step up, 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….

There's a lot more in the 84-page opinion, but in this post I thought I'd focus on the First Amendment issues.