Can the White House punish universities? Harvard case may decide future of federal oversight

Harvard challenges US funding freeze in case that may redefine federal oversight

Harvard University, the oldest and wealthiest institution of higher learning in the United States, is at the center of a historic legal battle that could reshape how far the federal government can go in disciplining universities. With more than $2.2 billion in federal research funding frozen by the Trump administration, Harvard is now locked in a courtroom standoff that legal experts say may redefine executive power over higher education.
In a hearing held in Boston on April 22, US District Court Judge Allison Burroughs—an Obama appointee—set July 21 as the date for oral arguments. Harvard has requested an expedited decision rather than an immediate restoration of funds, effectively leaving the university without federal research support for at least the next 12 weeks, unless the administration decides to reverse its actions voluntarily.
A political battle disguised as a funding freeze
The Trump administration announced the suspension of Harvard’s funding following what it called a breakdown in talks over campus antisemitism. The administration has warned that failure to protect Jewish students could lead to sanctions. According to CNN, more than 60 other colleges have received similar warnings. Additionally, institutions like Cornell and Northwestern have also seen their funding slashed in related actions.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated, as reported by CNN, “The president has made it quite clear that it’s Harvard who has put themselves in the position to lose their own funding by not obeying federal law.” The administration has also threatened Harvard’s tax-exempt status and its eligibility to host international students.
The lawsuit filed by Harvard names several federal agencies as defendants, including the Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, Department of Education, Department of Justice, and others. The university contends that the freeze violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946, which prohibits agencies from taking arbitrary or capricious actions.
Legal arguments center on procedure and free speech
Harvard’s legal team argues that the federal government failed to follow proper procedures outlined in the APA. They say the administration did not give the university an opportunity to correct any alleged violations, as required under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. “This case is about whether an administration can just do whatever it wants to do and punish entities that they perceive as a threat,” said law professor Osamudia James from the University of North Carolina, as quoted by CNN.
The university has also framed the case as a First Amendment issue, accusing the administration of attempting to coerce it into abandoning its academic principles and independence. Harvard retained attorneys William Burck and Robert Hur—both with strong Republican ties—to strengthen its position. As CNN reported, legal analyst Jennifer Rodgers noted that the strategy is aimed at building credibility with the current administration.
Broader implications for American higher education
Observers warn that the stakes go beyond Harvard. More than 160 lawsuits have cited APA violations during Trump’s current term, involving issues ranging from international student deportation to transgender rights. Law professor Ray Brescia from Albany Law School told CNN he believes Harvard’s case is a “slam dunk” on both First Amendment and procedural grounds.
Still, legal experts caution that the final decision may rest with the US Supreme Court. “The outcome won’t necessarily be about whether the judge believes the administration is right on the merits,” said James, as quoted by CNN. “It might just be about whether the agencies followed the proper procedures—and those procedures protect us.”
As legal battles unfold, it is the US taxpayer who will ultimately bear the cost. “Trump doesn’t have to spend a dime on this case. The American taxpayers do,” said professor Michael Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina, according to CNN.