Nation’s oldest and wealthiest university and Trump administration face off in court over threats to cut federal funds

By Ray Sanchez, CNN

(CNN) — The opening salvos in a closely watched and potentially protracted legal showdown between the nation’s oldest and wealthiest university and the Trump administration are expected Monday in a Massachusetts federal courtroom.

While Harvard University’s lawsuit following a $2.2 billion freeze in federal research funding marked an escalation in the ongoing fight between the White House and higher education, legal observers warn the stakes are much higher.

“How long can we go without investments in universities that produce innovations in health or advances that help us deal with climate change or psychological insight to help our communities thrive?” asked Osamudia James, a law professor at the University of North Carolina.

“Or how long can we survive the erosion of democratic norms, erosions to freedom of expression … the independence of universities? The fight is actually bigger than just, oh, how much money does Harvard have? Or how long can it last, or whether it should be getting these grants. What is at stake here is whether an administration can just do whatever it wants to do and punish entities that they perceive as a threat.”

The case will be heard by Judge Allison Burroughs, a Barack Obama appointee and University of Pennsylvania Law School graduate who in 2019 upheld Harvard’s race-conscious admissions process.

Harvard’s lawsuit was filed a week ago, days after the Trump administration announced it was cutting billions of dollars in grants following what the White House said was a breakdown in discussions over combatting antisemitism on campus.

The complaint lists as defendants the Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, Department of Education, Department of Justice, General Services Administration, Department of Energy, National Science Foundation, Department of Defense and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

The university not only argues the administration’s “attempt to coerce and control Harvard disregards … fundamental First Amendment principles” but also maintains Washington violated an arcane 1946 law governing administrative policies. In particular, the Administrative Procedure Act “requires this Court to hold unlawful and set aside any final agency action that is ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,’” the Harvard lawsuit says.

Trump administration attorneys have not responded to the allegations in the lawsuit, but White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Tuesday, “The president has made it quite clear that it’s Harvard who has put themselves in the position to lose their own funding by not obeying federal law, and we expect all colleges and universities who are receiving taxpayer funds to abide by federal law.”

Taxpayers will end up footing the legal bill

The Administrative Procedure Act, known as APA, was passed in the wake of World War II, as the government struggled to manage the expansion of federal agencies under President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The APA does not require a hearing for every decision made by a government agency, but it does say agencies should not suddenly change procedures without reason. Harvard argues suspending federal medical and scientific research funding as a way to combat antisemitism doesn’t make sense and upends official procedures without warning. Additionally, Harvard said the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires the government give the university a chance to fix any violations before taking away federal money.

After the lawsuit was filed last Monday, White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Harrison Fields said in a statement, “The gravy train of federal assistance to institutions like Harvard, which enrich their grossly overpaid bureaucrats with tax dollars from struggling American families is coming to an end.”

Michael Gerhardt, a professor at University of North Carolina School of Law, said he believes the case will be fully litigated and last at least a year. And no matter who wins in the end, American taxpayers will end up footing the legal bill.

“Trump doesn’t have to spend a dime on this case. The American taxpayers do,” he said. “Trump can throw all his administration lawyers at them and Harvard is going to have to pay for everything, but the Harvard complaint did ask for reimbursement of its legal fees. So if Harvard does win, eventually the administration will have to pay.”

‘A leash to force conformity’

As the Trump administration nears its 100th day this week, more than 160 other lawsuits have cited alleged violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, from complaints over international students facing deportation and fired federal workers to transgender students’ access to sports.

Court challenges to the finer points of federal law often take years to resolve, and Harvard has asked the judge to speed up the process to avoid harm to their programs.

“While Harvard is diligently seeking to mitigate the effects of these funding cuts, critical research efforts will be scaled back or even terminated,” the university’s lawyers wrote Wednesday in a court filing asking for an expedited hearing.

Harvard could seek an injunction to lift the federal funding freeze, said Ray Brescia, a professor at Albany Law School in New York.

“Whether it’s on the First Amendment grounds or on the procedural, the sort of administrative law issues, I do think it’s a slam dunk,” Brescia said of the strength of Harvard’s case.

James, the North Carolina professor whose specialties include administrative law, said Harvard’s case rests on strong legal footing, though that doesn’t ensure victory.

“I think we’re increasingly seeing federal courts pushing back on these power grabs,” she said. “The outcome won’t necessarily be about whether the judge believes the administration is right on the merits. It might just be about, these are the proper procedures that are necessary for agencies to take this sort of action, and you have to follow them. And those procedures protect us.”

Still, the question of how much the APA can limit the White House is almost certain to be decided by the Supreme Court.

Writing in The Harvard Crimson last week, law professor Charles Nesson said: “This case is about the freedom of a university to think, teach, and govern itself — without fear of political retaliation. It’s about whether federal dollars become a leash to force conformity. And it’s about whether students, faculty, and researchers across this University can continue to do their work in a space shaped by principle, not power.”

Before filing its lawsuit, Harvard hired two attorneys with deep Republican connections: Robert Hur, who was appointed special counsel and investigated President Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents, and William Burck, who served as a special counsel to President George W. Bush and recently helped law firm Paul Weiss negotiate with the Trump administration to lift an executive order targeting the firm.

“What these guys bring is a solid conservative credential, people who are well known on the right,” said CNN legal analyst Jennifer Rodgers, a lecturer at Columbia Law School. “This gives them, they hope, a better team to go in and try to negotiate a settlement that will be beneficial to Harvard because these guys have credibility within the Trump administration.”

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2025 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

CNN’s Andy Rose, Katelyn Polantz, Tierney Sneed, Betsy Klein, Chelsea Bailey, Michelle Watson, Matt Egan, Jeff Winter, Kara Scannell and Lauren del Valle contributed to this report.