Later this month, Harvard and the Trump administration are set to meet in court, where—if reported negotiations don’t yield a settlement deal—each side will present arguments about the federal funding freeze that has threatened more than $2.2 billion in research grants. Since the University filed suit challenging that freeze in April, at least 17 “friend of the court” briefs have been submitted to the federal district court in Massachusetts, with new briefs continuing to trickle in as recently as last week.
The amicus curiae briefs offer a glimpse into the legal arguments and ideological claims of those standing with Harvard in its fight to reclaim federal funding—as well as those supporting the government’s efforts to curtail it. Here are excerpts that highlight some broad divides.
The role of federal funding
Twenty-four universities, including MIT, Yale, and Princeton, argue for Harvard:
Terminating funding disrupts ongoing projects, ruins experiments and datasets, destroys the careers of aspiring scientists, and deters investment in the long-term research that only the academy—with federal funding—can pursue, threatening the pace of progress and undermining American leadership in the process.
The National Jewish Advocacy Center, a nonprofit dedicated to combating antisemitism, argues for the Trump administration:
No institution is simply entitled to billions of taxpayer dollars. The federal government has the absolute right to attach conditions to the programs that it funds, especially when it comes to compliance with applicable civil rights laws.…Contrary to what Harvard’s leadership may argue, this is not a First Amendment issue. Harvard is free to keep on discriminating to its own heart’s content—just not on the government’s dime.
Red states vs. blue states
A coalition of blue states, including Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, and Vermont, argues for Harvard:
Beyond threatening current jobs and businesses, such a freeze would halt career development for promising new scientists and debilitate the pipeline for future innovators.…it would also prevent research into lifesaving medicines and transformative technologies with potential to improve the health and life of Amici State residents. In short, the federal government’s current attack on research universities is, in multiple respects, an attack on the states themselves.
Fifteen red states, including Iowa, Florida, and Texas, argue for the Trump administration:
Harvard holds itself out as an exemplar to institutions of higher learning across the nation. When Harvard is told its discrimination is illegal, the repercussions are national. …When Harvard publicly and openly commits itself to defending antisemitism and antisemitic practices, that, too, reverberates nationally.…universities that accept federal funds have no First Amendment right to discriminate against Jews.
Definitions of antisemitism
A Jewish Voice for Peace, self-described as “one of the largest progressive Jewish organizations in the world,” argues for Harvard (taking issue with the government’s use of a definition of antisemitism that includes certain types of anti-Israel rhetoric):
Should this Court accept Defendants’ position…the Court would be redefining the Jewish faith. This ruling would force Jews to adopt a political ideology—Zionism—as part of their religious beliefs….In other words, this Court would be dictating who is and is not a Jew, what Jews are required to believe.
The Middle East Studies Association of North America, a nonprofit association of faculty, students, and researchers, argues for Harvard:
[F]or Middle East studies and other scholarly communities, treating critique of Zionism as a form of unlawful discrimination is the equivalent of imposing Creationism on biologists or Flat Earthism on geographers: it forecloses questions foundational to our field that make independent and rigorous scholarship possible.
The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, which had sued Harvard for its failure to address a pattern of antisemitism and settled with the University in January of this year, argues for the Trump administration:
Harvard’s incorporation of [the IHRA definition of antisemitism] was an overdue and necessary response to the virulent and unchecked anti-Semitic discrimination and harassment on its campus….A clear and analytically effective definition of anti-Semitism is necessary to address modern anti-Semitism. The definition must capture the ancient tropes and modern euphemisms while allowing for free expression, debate, and nuance in particular cases.
Process and precedent
A group of former U.S. officials who were previously responsible for enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 argues for Harvard:
Under Title VI’s enforcement scheme, fund termination is an option of last resort. It is like “dropping an atom bomb: everyone gets hurt.”…Following the law by complying with the mandated process is not a partisan issue—every prior administration, regardless of politics, has followed these requirements faithfully.
Eight advocacy organizations representing varied political perspectives, including the ACLU, the Cato Institute, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, argue for Harvard:
The government cannot attempt a hostile takeover of any private institution, much less a private college or university, in order to impose its preferred vision of ideological balance.…Allowing the administration’s unlawful conduct here could open the floodgates to retaliation, coercion, and ideological bullying of private actors across sectors.
