Harvard Sues Trump Administration

[Hume]

The lawsuit alleges violations of the First Amendment:

Defendants’ actions are unlawful. The First Amendment does not permit the Government to “interfere with private actors’ speech to advance its own vision of ideological balance,” Moody v. NetChoice, 603 U.S. 707, 741 (2024), nor may the Government “rely[] on the ‘threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion . . . to achieve the suppression’ of disfavored speech,” Nat’l Rifle Ass’n v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175, 189 (2024) (citation omitted). The Government’s attempt to coerce and control Harvard disregards these fundamental First Amendment principles, which safeguard Harvard’s “academic freedom.” Asociacion de Educacion Privada de P.R., Inc. v. Garcia-Padilla, 490 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2007). A threat such as this to a university’s academic freedom strikes an equal blow to the research conducted and resulting advancements made on its campus.

Harvard Sues Trump Administration - Daily Nous

Today, Harvard University filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over the billions of dollars in funding it has cut and threatened to cut to the university and its researchers. The move comes a week after Harvard President Alan M. Garber announced that the university would be resisting...

dailynous.com

 

[Hume]

Upholding Our Values, Defending Our University​

Dear Members of the Harvard Community,

Over the course of the past week, the federal government has taken several actions following Harvard’s refusal to comply with its illegal demands. Although some members of the administration have said their April 11 letter was sent by mistake, other statements and their actions suggest otherwise. Doubling down on the letter’s sweeping and intrusive demands—which would impose unprecedented and improper control over the University—the government has, in addition to the initial freeze of $2.2 billion in funding, considered taking steps to freeze an additional $1 billion in grants, initiated numerous investigations of Harvard’s operations, threatened the education of international students, and announced that it is considering a revocation of Harvard’s 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status. These actions have stark real-life consequences for patients, students, faculty, staff, researchers, and the standing of American higher education in the world.

Moments ago, we filed a lawsuit to halt the funding freeze because it is unlawful and beyond the government’s authority. I encourage you to read our complaint.

Upholding Our Values, Defending Our University

Dear Members of the Harvard Community,Over the course of the past week, the federal government has taken several actions following Harvard’s refusal to

www.harvard.edu

 

[Hume]

The lawsuit names as defendants Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the health and human services secretary; Linda M. McMahon, the education secretary; Stephen Ehikian, acting administrator of the General Services Administration; Attorney General Pamela J. Bondi; and several other administration officials.

Harvard Sues Trump Administration Over Threats to Cut Funding

Harvard’s lawsuit comes after the administration sought to force the university to comply with a list of demands by cutting billions in federal funding the school receives.

www.nytimes.com

 

[SmarterthanYou]

ROFL Nat’l Rifle Ass’n v. Vullo

welcome to the party pal

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The lawsuit alleges violations of the First Amendment:

Defendants’ actions are unlawful. The First Amendment does not permit the Government to “interfere with private actors’ speech to advance its own vision of ideological balance,” Moody v. NetChoice, 603 U.S. 707, 741 (2024), nor may the Government “rely[] on the ‘threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion . . . to achieve the suppression’ of disfavored speech,” Nat’l Rifle Ass’n v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175, 189 (2024) (citation omitted). The Government’s attempt to coerce and control Harvard disregards these fundamental First Amendment principles, which safeguard Harvard’s “academic freedom.” Asociacion de Educacion Privada de P.R., Inc. v. Garcia-Padilla, 490 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2007). A threat such as this to a university’s academic freedom strikes an equal blow to the research conducted and resulting advancements made on its campus.

Harvard Sues Trump Administration - Daily Nous

Today, Harvard University filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over the billions of dollars in funding it has cut and threatened to cut to the university and its researchers. The move comes a week after Harvard President Alan M. Garber announced that the university would be resisting...

dailynous.com

How does not providing federal funding to a private entity violate that entity's free speech?

 

[Hume]

How does not providing federal funding to a private entity violate that entity's free speech?

The reason.

 

[ULTRA MAGA]

Outstanding. I hope they spend their entire endowment fund on legal fees before the SCOTUS tells them to pound sand.

Sometime those leftist commies need to learn things the hard way.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The reason.

 

[Hume]

tired of your stupid pictures, back to ignore

 

[anonymoose]

Trump Is Likely to Win His Fight with Universities​

The administration holds many cards, and it seems determined to play them all.

Beginning in the 1970s, liberal activists discovered that they could use the threat of withdrawn federal funds to induce colleges to reform their faculties by hiring feminists, blacks, environmental activists, and others associated with progressive causes—all for the purpose of promoting “diversity” on campus. Trump has now turned the tables by using these same tactics against them in a campaign to reform the universities from a different direction. As to Trump’s wish to lift Harvard’s tax exemption, he is merely citing a Supreme Court precedent (Bob Jones University v. United States, 1983) created by civil rights activists when they sought to withdraw that school’s tax status because of its racially discriminatory policies.

Trump-University Fight: Why the Administration Is Likely to Win

It holds many cards, and it seems determined to play them all.

www.city-journal.org

 

[Scott]

Trump Is Likely to Win His Fight with Universities​

The administration holds many cards, and it seems determined to play them all.

Beginning in the 1970s, liberal activists discovered that they could use the threat of withdrawn federal funds to induce colleges to reform their faculties by hiring feminists, blacks, environmental activists, and others associated with progressive causes—all for the purpose of promoting “diversity” on campus. Trump has now turned the tables by using these same tactics against them in a campaign to reform the universities from a different direction. As to Trump’s wish to lift Harvard’s tax exemption, he is merely citing a Supreme Court precedent (Bob Jones University v. United States, 1983) created by civil rights activists when they sought to withdraw that school’s tax status because of its racially discriminatory policies.

Trump-University Fight: Why the Administration Is Likely to Win

It holds many cards, and it seems determined to play them all.

www.city-journal.org

In the first example above (DEI), let's say that you're right, that it was done and let's also suppose that it shouldn't have been done. 2 wrongs don't make a right. In the second instance, Bob Jones University v. United States, I hope you noted that the author of the article didn't actually speak badly about that decision and I think that makes sense, considering Bob Jones University wouldn't allow "admission to applicants engaged in an interracial marriage or known to advocate interracial marriage or dating", according to Wikipedia.

Here's a relevant paragraph from Wikipedia's article on Bob Jones University v. United States:
**

Supreme Court decision​

Bob Jones University v. United States was decided May 24, 1983, in an 8–1 decision with majority opinion written by Warren E. Burger, and joined by William J. Brennan, Byron R. White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry A. Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, and Sandra Day O'Connor. The Court, speaking through Burger, read a "common law" public interest requirement into the statute governing tax-exempt charitable status based on IRS Revenue Ruling 71-447, and cited Congress' refusal to intervene as proof that they approved of the IRS's construction of the statute. The Court applied a strict scrutiny analysis and found that the "Government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education . . . which substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on [the University's] exercise of their religious beliefs." The Court made clear, however, that its holding dealt "only with religious schools—not with churches or other purely religious institutions."
**

I'd argue that what the Trump Administration is trying to do in regards to Universities at this point is the opposite of this- that is, they are trying to eradicate any protests on Universities in support of Palestinian rights and condemning the atrocities committed by Israel, which in turn gets generous support by U.S. governments to do so. In other words, the U.S. government is aiding and abetting a country that has been stealing and killing Palestinians for decades and they don't want anyone criticizing Israel or those within the U.S. government who are doing this.