"Plaintiffs collectively challenge the decision to freeze and then terminate the grants on three primary grounds, contending that (1) the funding decisions were made in response to Harvard's refusal to capitulate to Defendants' content- and viewpoint- based demands and its subsequent decision to file a lawsuit, in violation of the First Amendment. The order added: (2) the grant terminations did not comply with the procedural requirements of Title VI and are thus invalid;"
"and (3) Defendants acted arbitrarily and capriciously when they froze and subsequently terminated funding to Harvard, as they failed to provide a reasoned explanation for how or why freezing and terminating funding would further the goal of ending antisemitism, to weigh the importance of the grants they sought to terminate, and to consider decades of reliance engendered through their prior practice of funding research at Harvard."
Federal District Court Judge Allison Burroughs issued an injunction preventing the Trump administration from freezing and terminating Harvard's federal grants and funding. Burroughs criticized the administration for using allegations of campus antisemitism as a pretext for an ideologically motivated campaign against leading universities. Plaintiffs assert three legal claims: unconstitutional viewpoint- and content-based retaliation violating the First Amendment; failure to follow Title VI procedural requirements; and arbitrary and capricious agency action lacking reasoned explanation, consideration of grant importance, and recognition of longstanding reliance interests. Defendants argue that jurisdiction lies with the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act. Harvard sued after billions in grants were cut.
#harvard #federal-funding #first-amendment-retaliation #title-vi-procedural-compliance #administrative-law
Read at www.mediaite.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]