Cases & Developments

Memorandum and Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs, the President and Fellows of Harvard College, filed suit against defendants, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and other federal agencies, challenging the defendants’ termination of $2.2 billion in multiyear grants and contracts after plaintiffs refused to comply with the demands outlined in defendants’ April 3 and 11, 2025 letters. Plaintiffs argued that defendants’ termination of grants was unlawful because (1) it was in violation of plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights; (2) defendants’ terminations failed to comply with Title VI procedural requirements; and (3) defendants’ actions were arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).  Defendants argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the claims, which they contended were the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. Defendants also argued that they were permitted under 2 C.F.R. section 200.340(a)(4) to terminate awards that “no longer effectuate [] the program goals or agency priorities.” The court granted summary judgment to Plaintiffs on their First Amendment and Title VI claims and on part of their APA claims. The court found that the defendants had violated plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights by “impermissibly retaliat[ing] against Harvard for refusing to capitulate to the government’s demands.” The court further found that defendants had violated Title VI by failing to follow the statutory procedures for terminating funding. The court reasoned that defendants’ Freeze Orders were arbitrary and capricious because they failed to provide an explanation for how the freeze would help combat antisemitism and concluded that “in reality, [there is] little connection between the research affected by the grant terminations and antisemitism” and called defendants’ use of antisemitism a “smokescreen” for “a targeted ideologically-motivated assault on this country’s premier universities.” Finally, the court granted plaintiffs’ request for a permanent injunction, preventing defendants from reimposing conditions that have been deemed unconstitutional, and further enjoined defendants from issuing any other terminations, freezing of funds, or refusal to award future grants, contracts, or other federal funding “on the purported grounds of discrimination without compliance with the requirements of Title VI.”