Trump Admin Seeks to Wield Supreme Court Win on Diversity Grants Against Harvard’s Suit

Days after the Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a major win allowing federal agencies to proceed with cuts to diversity-related grants, the administration is trying to use its victory against another target: Harvard.

The Supreme Court on Thursday overruled decisions by lower courts to block the termination of more than $780 million in research funding from the National Institutes of Health. The ruling found that the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts likely lacked the jurisdiction to review the terminations, which aimed to slash funding for research linked to topics including diversity, equity, and inclusion; gender; race; and vaccine hesitancy.

On Saturday, lawyers for the Trump administration argued that the decision lent strength to their argument that the district court does not have the authority to consider Harvard’s April lawsuit challenging the freeze on nearly $3 billion in its own federal grants.

The case, they wrote, should instead be heard by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, which deals with monetary claims against the federal government.

“The Supreme Court has now confirmed Defendants’ interpretation and rejected the primary authority on which Plaintiff relies for its jurisdictional argument,” the government lawyers wrote in the Saturday filing.

But Harvard has so far resisted the effort to transfer the case. At the heart of the case, the University’s lawyers have argued, are claims that the Trump administration violated Harvard’s First Amendment rights and various procedural requirements for canceling grants, which are defined under federal law.

Judge Allison D. Burroughs, who is presiding over Harvard’s case, has previously appeared skeptical of the argument that the suit should be heard in federal claims court. At a July hearing, she pressed the government’s attorney on how Harvard’s constitutional claims — including allegations that the grant cuts violated its First Amendment rights — could be considered if the case were transferred out of district court.

And on Sunday, Harvard clapped back, arguing that its suit challenged the legality of the Trump administration’s underlying policies and sought an injunction against future retaliatory grant cuts, not just the restoration of lost grants. The University’s argument that the administration violated the procedural requirements of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which it used to justify some of the grant cuts, could not be evaluated in federal claims court, Harvard argued.

The Supreme Court justices were themselves split on whether the diversity-related grant terminations could be heard in district courts — and whether the underlying policy directing the terminations was lawful. A five-justice majority issued the ruling allowing the Trump administration to move forward with canceling the grants. But a different five-member group also ruled that the policy instructing grants to be terminated was likely unlawful and should be stayed. The case has been sent back to the lower courts for further litigation.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett was the only member to rule with both majorities. In a concurring opinion, she wrote that the policy behind the cuts was probably against the law — but that individual grant cancellations should be heard in federal claims court, not district court.

The Trump administration’s Saturday filing in Harvard’s suit relies heavily on Barrett’s opinion, citing her argument that claims challenging guidance from federal agencies can be considered separately from claims “‘founded … upon’ contract.” But if a plaintiff is seeking the restoration of lost funding, they must do so through federal claims court, Barrett concluded.

“This case does not involve binding agency guidance; rather, Harvard seeks only payment of money from individual grant terminations,” Trump administration lawyers wrote.

“Nevertheless, Justice Barrett made clear that even if Harvard’s suit had involved claims challenging guidance documents, this Court would not have jurisdiction to review any terminations issued pursuant to that guidance,” they added.

Harvard argued on Sunday that its request for the court to vacate the policies behind the grant cuts was based on a First Amendment claim and not a contract claim.

It is not yet clear how Burroughs, the district court judge overseeing the case, will react to the Trump administration’s filing. Both parties have requested summary judgment, a legal process that allows her to rule without a full trial.

If Harvard wins the lawsuit, it could see billions of dollars of research funding restored, easing the pressure on scientists and other scholars who have faced an intense budget squeeze from the cuts and recently hiked endowment tax.

But it is possible that the University will not finish its challenge in court. Harvard and the White House restarted negotiations in June, and in recent months, the Trump administration has pushed hard for a deal costing upwards of $500 million.

Harvard’s president previously cast doubt on the half-billion-dollar price tag, but recent reports suggest that the University is weighing a settlement that would involve paying that sum to vocational and educational programs.

—Staff writer William C. Mao can be reached at william.mao@thecrimson.com. Follow him on X @williamcmao.

—Staff writer Veronica H. Paulus can be reached at veronica.paulus@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @VeronicaHPaulus.