Harvard wins injunction against Trump budget cuts

 In two actions by Harvard and its employees unions a federal judge in Boston has enjoined the huge budget cuts which Trup forced on the University.

harvard.usdhhs.9.3.2025.pdf

More specifically, Plaintiffs collectively challenge the decision to freeze and then terminate the grants on three primary grounds, contending that (1) the funding decisions were made in response to Harvard’s refusal to capitulate to Defendants’ content- and viewpoint- based demands and its subsequent decision to file a lawsuit, in violation of the First Amendment; (2) the grant terminations did not comply with the procedural requirements of Title VI and are thus invalid; and (3) Defendants acted arbitrarily and capriciously when they froze and subsequently terminated funding to Harvard, as they failed to provide a reasoned explanation for how or why freezing and terminating funding would further the goal of ending antisemitism, to weigh the importance of the grants they sought to terminate, and to consider decades of reliance engendered through their prior practice of funding research at Harvard. Defendants’ initial and primary argument in response is that this Court lacks jurisdiction over these claims, all of which belong in the Federal Court of Claims pursuant to the Tucker Act. Currently before the Court are the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment. In particular, Harvard and Defendants both move for summary judgment as to all Harvard’s claims.

 [Harvard, ECF No. 69; Harvard, ECF No. 185]. Defendants move for summary judgment as to all of the Organizational Plaintiffs’ claims, while the Organizational Plaintiffs move for summary judgment only as to their First Amendment, Title VI, and arbitrary and capricious claims, but not their separation of powers, spending clause, and due process claims. [AAUP, ECF No. 74; AAUP, ECF No. 103]. For the reasons stated herein, Harvard’s motion for summary judgment, [Harvard, ECF No. 69], is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; the Organizational Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, [AAUP, ECF No. 74], is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; and Defendants’ motions for summary judgment, [Harvard, ECF No. 185; AAUP, ECF No. 103], are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.