The federal government threatened to withhold billions of dollars in research funding from Harvard University after the school refused to adopt the government’s preferred ideological approach to who it admits to study, who it employs to teach, and what classes and other programs it offers.
Harvard sued, and a federal district court blocked the administration's attempted hostile takeover last August. The court 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.”
But the government appealed to the First Circuit for the U.S. Court of Appeals. On July 22, we filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing the administration is attempting to retaliate, coerce, and bully the university into agreeing with its ideological viewpoints – a clear violation of the First Amendment.
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.
We joined the brief alongside legal organizations from across the ideological spectrum, including the Cato Institute and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. The 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.
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 if the court allows the Trump administration to move forward. 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:
- ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project
- ACLU of Maine
- ACLU of Massachusetts
- ACLU of New Hampshire
- ACLU of Puerto Rico
- ACLU of Rhode Island
- Cato Institute
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Knight First Amendment Institute
- National Coalition Against Censorship
- Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
- Rutherford Institute
