A federal judge in Boston has dismissed the Trump administration’s antisemitism lawsuit against Harvard—a major blow to the government’s attempts to strip Harvard of all federal funding. The lawsuit alleged that “Harvard fostered and continues to foster a campus climate where hostile antisemitism and anti-Israel conduct thrives,” violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that give the government, it asserted, the right to recover more than $1 billion in previously awarded grants and contracts, and to prevent Harvard from receiving any federal funding in the future.
In a four-page memorandum and order, U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns, J.D. ’76, noted that Harvard had moved to dismiss the case on several grounds, but that his decision was a narrow one: “The court begins (and ends) with Harvard’s first argument, namely, that the Government has not sufficiently pled an ongoing violation of Title VI.”
The timing of the government’s actions was a key factor. Stearns noted that the government’s complaint, filed in March 2026, focused on incidents that took place during the 2023-2024 academic year, following the October 7, 2023, Hamas terrorist attack on Israeli civilians. Three campus incidents were alleged to have occurred after that time.
“Without diminishing any concern arising from these occurrences,” the judge wrote, “the court finds them, singly and collectively, to be too isolated and episodic to support a plausible inference that any institutionalized noncompliance with Title VI persists at Harvard to this day.”
He continued by citing the relevant statute enacted by Congress, writing that it authorizes the government to take action only if and after (his emphasis) it “has advised the appropriate person or persons of the failure to comply with the requirement and has determined that compliance cannot be secured by voluntary means.” The government notified Harvard of its alleged violation on June 30, 2025, Stearns noted, yet failed to establish “that any events that might be construed as evidence of noncompliance” occurred after that date.
The court’s memorandum also rejected the U.S. Department of Justice’s argument that it would be “virtually impossible” for the United States to win a Title VI lawsuit if a funding recipient could not be held liable for past actions. The government argued that “because a reasonable defendant” would immediately attempt to come into compliance with the law, they could never be held liable for past noncompliance. Harvard, in fact, began instituting reforms long before the government filed its lawsuit, drafting new guidelines for protests and demonstrations, improving disciplinary procedures for policy violators, promoting viewpoint diversity, and adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism into its non-discrimination policies and trainings.
Addressing the Justice Department’s contention that it could never win a Title VI case, Stearns wrote that “the Government misconstrues, inadvertently or not, the purpose of an enforcement action.” Congress’s intent was not to punish, he wrote, but instead to incentivize a recipient of federal funding to come into compliance with Title VI. In that sense, he noted, the government has already achieved a victory.
As for the motion to dismiss, Stearns found in Harvard’s favor. Finding “no plausible allegation of noncompliance” after the University had been given notice of the allegations, he wrote, “Harvard’s motion to dismiss is allowed.”
