How Cambridge Is Fighting the Trump Administration in Court

Harvard’s high-profile lawsuits against the Trump administration have grabbed national headlines — but beyond the University’s gates, the city of Cambridge has taken up its own legal fight against Washington.

Cambridge has joined two lawsuits against federal actions: one that challenges efforts to cut off funding to sanctuary cities, and another that objects to new conditions on a grant supporting services for homeless residents. Judges have temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s policies in both cases.

The city has also signaled its backing for universities whose research funding and international student populations have become targets. It filed an amicus brief in a lawsuit against limits on indirect cost reimbursements from the National Institutes of Health, and it is planning to submit an amicus brief supporting one of Harvard’s lawsuits.

The city known to many residents as the “People’s Republic of Cambridge” is unlikely to see its disputes with the White House end anytime soon. Its protections for undocumented immigrants and embrace of diversity, equity, and inclusion both put it at odds with President Donald Trump’s agenda.

And — in a college town where Harvard and MIT, the two largest employers, provide more than 20,000 jobs — the Trump administration’s assault on universities could have significant economic impacts.

At a City Council meeting last week, councilors reviewed a document of every lawsuit against federal actions that involved or applied to Cambridge. A dozen made the list.

“Unfortunately, it’s not an unprecedented time — it’s actually precedented, because we’re finding ourselves in this practically every week,” Councilor Patricia M. “Patty” Nolan ’80 said at the Monday meeting.

Sanctuary City Laws

The Trump administration has launched high-profile attacks on Harvard’s international students, and Cambridge — which first declared itself a sanctuary city in 1985, and has repeatedly reaffirmed the status in years since — is fighting its own, separate battles against the administration’s immigration crackdown.

The city is currently a party to a lawsuit over Trump’s attempts to penalize cities that limit cooperation with federal immigration agents. The legal dispute originated during Trump’s first term, when he signed a 2017 executive order directing the Department of Homeland Security to withhold federal funding from cities with sanctuary policies.

San Francisco sued, and an appeals court ruled the city’s sanctuary policies were legal and deemed the withholding of funds unconstitutional.

Then, on the first day of his second term in January, Trump signed two executive orders that mirrored the blocked 2017 policy, leading San Francisco to file another lawsuit. A judge issued a preliminary injunction against the federal government, which appealed the decision. The appeal is pending.

Cambridge petitioned to join as a plaintiff in the case on July 8, alongside dozens of other cities across the country, and was added on Aug. 5.

Despite federal threats, Cambridge has doubled down on its sanctuary city status. At the City Council meeting last week, lawmakers amended the city’s 40-year-old Welcoming Community Ordinance to prevent Cambridge Police officers from assisting in any Immigrations and Customs Enforcement operations in the city.

The amendment removed language that permitted Cambridge Police to provide escorts for federal agents or assistance with “traffic control.” The amended ordinance also instructs CPD officers to verify the identities of federal agents, though it stops short of asking them to record names and badge numbers.

That policy could put a target on the city’s back.

The DHS named Cambridge in May on a list of 200 jurisdictions that it said were breaking federal law, but swiftly withdrew the list after it drew backlash from sheriffs and city leaders nationwide. A revised list released by the DHS last week named Boston but not Cambridge.

The Trump administration also targeted Chicago in a separate case earlier this year, claiming that the city’s Welcoming City Ordinance — which is similar to Cambridge’s policy — represents an “intentional effort to obstruct the Federal Government’s enforcement of federal immigration law.”

A judge threw out the lawsuit in late July and upheld Chicago’s sanctuary policies. If the federal government does not amend its complaint by August 22, the dismissal will become permanent.

The federal Department of Transportation also attempted in April to require that local and state governments cooperate with federal immigration enforcement in order to receive grants and contracts from the agency. The change threatened more than $1.5 billion in annual funding to Massachusetts alone.

Massachusetts and 19 other states sued in May, and a judge granted a preliminary injunction, temporarily protecting the flow of federal funds. Cambridge is not a party to the lawsuit, but the order blocks the DOT from applying its immigration enforcement conditions to the city.

A final decision in the case is not expected until the fall.

Homelessness

The other lawsuit that Cambridge has joined as a plaintiff, King County v. Turner, concerns new restrictions imposed on federal grants, including conditions related to immigration, DEI, “gender ideology,” and “elective abortions.”

The complaint was first filed in May by cities and counties that receive funding under the Continuum of Care grant, which is administered through the Department of Housing and Urban Development to rehouse and support unhoused populations.

Cambridge, which signed onto the lawsuit several weeks after it was first filed, receives millions of dollars in HUD funding each year to “provide crucial services for local community members who have and are experiencing homelessness,” according to city spokesperson Jeremy C. Warnick.

Cambridge received more than $6.4 million in Continuum of Care funding this year and used the grant to support more than a dozen city housing programs “including intake services, Permanent Supportive Housing projects, and ongoing leasing assistance,” according to Warnick.

The new conditions, which require grant recipients to comply with Trump’s executive orders prohibiting DEI programs and the use of funds to support abortion access, could put Cambridge’s funding in limbo.

The lawsuit now involves dozens of local governments and concerns a total of more than $4 billion in federal funding. A judge granted a preliminary injunction to the plaintiffs, temporarily preventing the federal government from enforcing its new conditions on the Continuum of Care funding. The federal government has filed an appeal.

The injunction allows the city to proceed with signing the grant agreements without agreeing to the new conditions, and all $6.4 million of the city’s Continuum of Care funding has been appropriated as of last week.

Andrea Henneberry, spokesperson for the Cambridge-based homelessness advocacy organization On the Rise, wrote in a statement that “it is pretty scary to think about how disruptive the potential loss of funding could be.”

Though On the Rise’s Cambridge-based shelter for women and transgender people does not directly receive Continuum of Care funding, Henneberry wrote that loss of the grant could have “ripple effects in the social service ecosystem.”

Henneberry explained that a person moving out of homelessness could come into contact with six or more organizations as they try to find housing, many of which are funded by Continuum of Care or other HUD funding. Losing that money could make it harder for Cambridge and local nonprofits to provide services — from assistance with applications and paperwork to covering the cost of furniture, moving costs, healthcare, or food.

Harvard and Research Funding

Though Cambridge is not directly involved in Harvard’s two lawsuits against the Trump administration, the city has been active in its support of the University’s opposition to the administration’s demands.

Cambridge officials hope to file an amicus brief supporting Harvard’s lawsuit against federal attempts to revoke its ability to host international students and scholars. More than 10,000 foreign students, researchers, and instructors currently work at Harvard — many of whom could lose their authorization to study in the U.S. if the Trump administration’s orders move forward.

Outside of court, the City Council has vocally supported Harvard’s fight. In the spring, when it remained unclear whether Harvard would comply with the administration, the City Council passed a resolution urging defiance. A week later, it applauded Harvard’s decision to reject federal demands in a second resolution.

Cambridge did not file an amicus brief in Harvard’s other ongoing lawsuit, which challenges the Trump administration’s suspension of billions of dollars in research funding. As the University continues talks with the Trump administration that could lead to a negotiated settlement, the future of that suit is not clear — though Harvard has requested a decision by Sept. 3.

More than $2.7 billion in multiyear funding commitments, as well as Harvard’s eligibility for future federal grants, are at stake.

Cambridge also signed an amicus brief in a separate case against a cap of 15 percent on indirect cost reimbursements from the National Institutes of Health.

A coalition of 22 states, led by Massachusetts, filed a February lawsuit against the cap, which they said “will devastate critical public health research at universities and research institutions in the United States.”

“Without relief from NIH’s action, these institutions’ cutting edge work to cure and treat human disease will grind to a halt,” the plaintiffs wrote in their complaint.

Hundreds of organizations across Massachusetts received $3.46 billion in NIH funding in fiscal year 2024, sponsoring nearly 6,000 projects. More than $1 billion of that total went toward indirect costs.

A federal judge blocked the 15 percent cap in a June ruling, which the federal government has appealed.

Though Harvard is not a party to the lawsuit, it would face especially harsh losses if the indirect cost rate cap moves forward. The University currently receives an indirect cost rate of 69 percent, and the cap could lead to a more than $300 million funding loss per year. In fiscal year 2024, University received more than $488 million through NIH grants, nearly one-third of which went toward indirect expenses.

And other research institutions like MIT and the MIT- and Harvard-affiliated Broad Institute, as well as biotechnology companies like Sanofi and Novartis, are likewise some of Cambridge’s top employers.

—Staff writer Megan L. Blonigen can be reached at megan.blonigen@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X at @MeganBlonigen.