A federal judge threw out the Justice Department’s civil rights lawsuit (PDF File) against Harvard on Thursday, ruling that the government never plausibly alleged the university is violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act right now.
“The court begins (and ends) with Harvard’s first argument,” U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns wrote. “The Government has not sufficiently pled an ongoing violation of Title VI.“
The Justice Department sued Harvard on March 20, 2026, accusing the school of deliberate indifference toward harassment of Jewish and Israeli students after October 7, 2023, and asking the court to force compliance and recover taxpayer money already spent.
Harvard is set to receive more than $2.6 billion under active Department of Health and Human Services grants, the same category of research money that has already forced schools like MIT to shrink graduate admissions when it disappears.
Would you like to save this?
We’ll email this article to you, so you can come back to it later!
Why It Matters
Federal enforcement leverage over universities now has a documented expiration date. The court held that the government must plead noncompliance occurring after it delivers statutory notice (here, June 30, 2025) before it can pull or claw back funding.
That standard applies to every school named in the Education Department’s antisemitism investigations, not just Harvard, and it raises the evidentiary bar for cases built on 2023-2024 campus conduct.
The Court’s Reasoning
- The amended complaint focused almost entirely on the 2023-2024 school year. Only three alleged incidents came later, all in March 2025.
- Stearns called those “too isolated and episodic to support a plausible inference that any institutionalized noncompliance with Title VI persists at Harvard to this day.“
- Under 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-1, the government may act only after notifying the recipient and determining voluntary compliance can’t be secured.
- The judge rejected the government’s reading of that determination requirement, noting it “does not identify any rational basis” and that the focus is “compliance with Title VI, not compliance with specific governmental demands.”
- Congress’s intent, he wrote, “was not to penalize a wayward funding recipient but instead to incentivize it to bring itself into compliance.“
How This Connects
Harvard’s finances make it an outlier target: the school collected roughly $20 million in federal student aid against a $56 billion endowment, and it now offers free tuition to families earning under $200,000. Research grants, not aid, are the pressure point. Courts have repeatedly narrowed that pressure, including a ruling that the administration can’t cancel grants simply because agency priorities changed.
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said the department disagrees with the ruling and is assessing next steps, per Higher Ed Dive. As such, an appeal to the First Circuit is the likely coming.
Watch whether the administration shifts from litigation to the voluntary route it has been building, including Education Secretary Linda McMahon’s request that every college publish a reform statement and the Heritage Foundation’s model state legislation tied to the higher education compact.
Don’t Miss These Other Stories:
DOJ Opens Civil Rights Investigation Into Harvard’s $630 Million In China-Based Funding
Colleges Are Requiring SAT and ACT Scores Again — Here’s the Full List for 2027
Harvard Faculty Vote To Cap A Grades At 20% Starting Fall 2027
The post Judge Tosses Trump Administration’s Antisemitism Lawsuit Against Harvard appeared first on The College Investor.
