
07/02/2025
Harvard University and the federal government are slated to square off in court on July 21, with more than $2.2 billion in federal funding and grants at stake. To help readers understand the legal arguments on both sides of the conflict, we’ve compiled “baseball cards” of lawyers involved in the cases. Here’s what each side has to say.
The government’s argument:
The federal government, mainly through the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services, revoked Harvard’s funding by citing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires federally funded schools to protect students from discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. The government claims Harvard failed to protect Jewish students during pro-Palestine protests following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel and the subsequent war in Gaza.
Harvard’s argument:
Harvard sued in April to stop the funding freeze. While acknowledging the importance of combating antisemitism and promoting viewpoint diversity, the University argues such reforms should come from institutions, not the government. Harvard cites recent updates to disciplinary policies aimed at supporting Jewish and Israeli students. It also claims the government failed to follow the required legal process under Title VI and the Administrative Procedure Act. Additionally, Harvard argues that the government’s demands threaten academic freedom and violate its First Amendment rights, including in areas like faculty hiring and admissions.
Read more: https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2025/07/harvard-vs-trump-lawyers
📸: Illustrations by Harvard Magazine based on photographs from Lannis Waters / Palm Beach Post via the Associated Press and by Bruce Rogovin.