ACLU of Maine, Advocates Urge Court to Block President Trump’s Unconstitutional Attacks on Academic Freedom

The amicus brief filed before the First Circuit argues that the administration violated Harvard’s rights to free speech and academic freedom by unlawfully revoking federal funding.

July 23, 2026 10:00 am

BOSTON – The ACLU of Maine and legal organizations across the ideological spectrum today urged a federal appeals court to affirm a district court decision blocking the Trump administration’s attempted hostile ideological takeover of Harvard University. The amicus brief was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit by a diverse group of organizations, including the ACLU, Cato Institute, and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

The federal government withheld billions of dollars in research funding from Harvard University after the university refused to vet its students, faculty, and course offerings for “ideological diversity” and place certain departments and centers at odds with the government’s preferred viewpoint – such as the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures – under a third party audit.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts last August held that the government violated the university’s First Amendment rights by withholding the funding because of the university’s refusal to let the government “control viewpoints at Harvard.” In the decision, the judge noted that the Trump administration violated Harvard’s right to free speech by unconstitutionally seeking “to force Harvard to better manifest the government’s favored worldview.”

The ACLU’s amicus brief argues that the government cannot impose a specific ideological quota or approach on private institutions. Time and again, courts have prevented the government from compelling private parties to communicate the government’s preferred views – or even its preferred approach to “viewpoint neutrality.”

The First Amendment principle of academic freedom prohibits the government from imposing ideological admissions, hiring, and programmatic requirements on colleges and universities. The First Amendment retaliation and coercion in this case is all the more egregious because it targets an institution of higher education, whose choices about who to teach, what to teach, and who should do the teaching are all protected by the First Amendment.

“The government is attempting to unlawfully suppress academic freedom, one of our nation’s deepest commitments,” said ACLU of Maine Legal Director Carol Garvan. “It is fundamental to free speech, free thought, and societal advancement that teachers and students remain free to ask questions, debate, study, and present their views without restriction, intimidation, or retaliation. And the government’s interference won’t stop at Harvard. The administration’s unlawful conduct here could open the floodgates to retaliation and ideological bullying of private actors across the country. We hope the First Circuit will uphold the district court’s decision.”

The legal advocacy organizations on the amicus brief represent a broad ideological spectrum: