Cases & Developments

Opinion & Order denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Dismissing for Lack of Standing. Plaintiffs, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) sought a preliminary injunction against defendants, several United States government agencies and cabinet-level or high-ranking officials. Plaintiffs sought to require immediate reinstatement and restoration of all grants and contracts to Columbia University and plaintiffs’ members that were unlawfully terminated, canceled, or paused. Additionally, plaintiffs sought to prohibit defendants from enforcing the demands made in their March 13th letter, as well as engaging in unlawful investigations under the purported guise of Title VI involving grants or contracts. The Court held that plaintiffs, as labor unions, lacked standing to challenge defendants’ decision to suspend or terminate grants and contracts with Columbia University. The Court reasoned that plaintiffs could not seek reinstatement of the federal funds in question because they had no legal entitlement to them, as they were awarded directly to Columbia University—an entity not party to the lawsuit—and because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a legally cognizable injury-in-fact. Even in their capacity as representative organizations, the Court found that plaintiffs failed to establish representative standing, noting a lack of traceable injury, as Columbia University’s non-involvement severed the “causal chain between [defendants] and any alleged injury.” Further, the Court found plaintiffs’ claim that Title VI is the exclusive legal basis for terminating federal funding in response to alleged religious discrimination, unpersuasive, and noted that the Executive Branch may properly act through lawful means to address such concerns on college campuses. As such, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion and dismissed the case without prejudice.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Plaintiff, the President and Fellows of Harvard College allege that defendants, the U.S. Department of Health and Human services, the National Institutes of Health, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., U.S. Department of Justice, Pamela J. Bondi, U.S. Department of Education, Linda M. McMahon, U.S. General Services Administration, Stephen Ehikian, U.S. Department of Energy, Christopher A. Wright, U.S. National Science Foundation, Sethuraman Panchanathan, U.S Department of Defense, Peter B. Hegseth, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and Janet E. Petro have acted unlawfully by way of “withholding federal funding as leverage to gain control of academic decision making at Harvard.” Defendants announced that they were freezing $2.2 billion in multiyear grants and $60 million in multiyear contract value to plaintiff after plaintiff refused to comply with defendants’ conditions outlined in letters sent on April 3 and 11, 2025. Plaintiff alleges that defendants’ intentions are to “allow the Government to micromanage your academic institution or jeopardize the institution’s ability to pursue medical breakthroughs, scientific discoveries, and innovative solutions.” Plaintiff contends that defendants’ action in withholding funding is a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and defendants have violated the First Amendment, are acting in excess of their statutory and constitutional authority, are arbitrary and capricious, and failed to follow their own regulatory procedures, which required defendants to provide notice, attempt to secure compliance by voluntary means, provide an opportunity for hearing, make express findings on the record, and file with the Committees of the House and Senate that have legislative jurisdiction over the program(s) involved — none of which were done prior to Federal financial assistance being frozen. Plaintiff asked the court to declare defendants’ actions unconstitutional, postpone the effectiveness of the “Freeze Order” and any unconstitutional conditions in the April 3 and 11 letters, and finally, permanently enjoin defendants from violating plaintiff’s First Amendment rights, as well as from terminating, freezing, or refusing to grant or continue any Federal funding at issue without first complying with Federal law. 

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Plaintiffs, the American Association of University Professors and the American Federation of Teachers allege that the Trump Administration’s actions in (1) commencing an investigation of Columbia University for its asserted but unspecified failure to address antisemitism on campus, (2) canceling approximately $400 million in critical federal research funding without prior notice, explanation, or any form of due process, and (3) demanding that the University adopt a list of sweeping programmatic and structural changes within one week as “a precondition” for the University’s “continued financial relationship with the United States government,” valued at approximately $5 billion are “an existential gun to the head for a university.” Plaintiffs allege that these actions violate First Amendment Freedom of Speech as the First Amendment prohibits the government from using threats of legal sanction and other means of coercion to achieve the suppression of disfavored speech or academic freedom. Plaintiffs allege that the administration is implementing unconstitutional conditions on federal funding and “the government may not place a condition on the receipt of a benefit or subsidy that infringes upon the recipient’s constitutionally protected rights, even if the government has no obligation to offer the benefit in the first instance.” Plaintiffs allege procedural and substantive violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) with respect to the March 7, 2025, funding withdrawal and the March 13th letter as defendants did not provide an opportunity for a hearing or make an express finding on record as to the University’s alleged noncompliance with Title VI, and such actions were both arbitrary and capricious as the withdrawal was either reasonable nor reasonably explained. Plaintiffs allege that the March 13th letter was contrary to law and exceeded defendants’ statutory authority, as no law grants defendants the authority to demand expulsion or multi-year suspension of particular students or to dictate a fundamental restructuring of a university’s disciplinary system or require unspecified comprehensive admissions reform or academic receivership. They further alleged that such actions violate separation of powers, ultra vires. Finally, plaintiffs allege the lack of fair notice or a reasonable opportunity to be heard before the termination of $400 million in federal funding is a violation of due process. Plaintiffs request that the court declare unlawful and set aside defendants’ termination of federal financial assistance to Columbia University announced on March 7, 2025; the demands set forth in defendants’ March 13th letter; declare that defendants’ cancelation of federal grants without observance of Title VI’s statutory and regulatory requirements and imposition of demands upon threat of withholding future federal funding violate the First, Fifth, and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, violate the separation of powers, are ultra vires, and constitute an unconstitutional condition on federal financial assistance; and enter a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring defendants to immediately reinstate or restore all grants and contracts to Columbia University and plaintiffs’ members that were unlawfully terminated, canceled, or paused, and prohibiting defendants from: (i) terminating, canceling, pausing, issuing stop-work orders, or otherwise interfering with grants or contracts purportedly in response to Title VI violations, (ii) engaging in any purported Title VI investigation involving grants or contracts except in compliance with Title VI, its implementing regulations, the APA, and the Constitution, or (iii) enforcing the demands made in defendants’ March 13th letter, or from insisting on the fulfillment of any or all of those demands or any other demands as a precondition for providing any benefit or avoiding any sanction under Title VI, except upon findings required by, and pursuant to the processes required by, Title VI and its implementing regulations.