Law passed in 1946 could potentially be a decisive factor in Harvard's legal battle against the Trump administration
Crafty Ivy League Battles Federal Administration
In the heat of the political fray, Harvard University, a premier institution, decided to harness the mightiest deterrent in the federal legal arena – the First Amendment – to combat the Trump administration's alleged intervention in its academic matters. The standoff between the Ivy League giant and the federal government is centered on a perceived disregard for fundamental First Amendment principles and potential procedural irregularities.
While citing the Bill of Rights' cherished guarantee of freedom of speech is certainly an attention-grabber, the centerpiece of Harvard's lawsuit merely skims the surface of a more complex issue. This complex issue revolves around Harvard's claim that the executive branch isn't adhering to federal rules for changing key government policies, as specified in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The APA, enacted after World War II to manage the rapid expansion of federal agencies under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, has become a focal point of discussion as Harvard argues that the Trump administration acted arbitrarily and capriciously by imposing funding freezes without following proper procedures.
According to the lawsuit, the government must be held accountable for taking actions that are "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." The Trump administration's swift response in freezing approximately $2.2 billion in funding that is crucial for the school's research resembles the administration's modus operandi, characterized by rapid, unilateral action instead of deliberation and compromise.
In a highly contested matter that may soon find its way before the Supreme Court, the question of whether the government can make broad demands of Harvard as a precondition for funding looms large. Legal experts, such as Steve Vladeck from Georgetown Law, have expressed confidence in Harvard's case, stating that it’s not controversial to suggest the government can’t demand changes in exchange for funding that usually goes toward medical research, scientific innovation, and other educational endeavors.
Why the Administrative Procedure Act Matters
The APA’s purpose is to ensure the executive branch is following the law and considering the facts before acting. The act does not require a hearing for every decision made by a government agency but mandates that agencies should not make decisions without reason.
Harvard argues that suspending federal funding without prior warning, as a means to combat antisemitism, not only lacks a rational basis but disrupts long-standing governmental procedures. The university claims that withholding such funds would affect its budgeting, staffing, infrastructure, facility, equipment purchases, and long-term investment decisions.
While the Trump administration asserts that Harvard has allowed antisemitism to persist in violation of the Civil Rights Act, the university counters by stating that it is addressing concerns from Jewish students and faculty. Harvard has tightened its ban on encampments and protests that disrupt student activities, made "doxing" a violation of anti-harassment and anti-bullying rules, and expanded inclusion efforts to include Jewish students.
The university also argues that the government shouldn't be able to withhold funding without first giving it a chance to address any potential violations of the Civil Rights Act.
Courage, Legal Challenges, and the Future
Over 160 lawsuits have cited violations of the APA, including those dealing with international students facing deportation, fired federal workers, and transgender students’ access to sports. Lawsuits raising fine points of federal law may take years to resolve, but Harvard is asking for an expedited hearing to avoid harm to its academic pursuits.
As more cases makes their way through the legal system, the question of how much the APA can limit the White House's authority is likely to be settled by the Supreme Court. While these disputes unfold, other esteemed institutions like Columbia University are negotiating their own funding deals to avoid similar controversies.
Though the challenges are daunting, education advocates stand firm in their belief that illegal overreach by the government must be addressed, as Harvard did by challenging the funding freeze in court. Whether the university's efforts will yield fruit remains to be seen, but the battle for academic freedom and adherence to procedural rules is far from over.
- Harvard University, in the realm of politics and general news, has announced a lawsuit against the federal administration, appealing to the First Amendment to resist perceived intervention in its academic matters.
- The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is at the heart of the lawsuit, with Harvard claiming that the Trump administration acted arbitrarily and capriciously by freezing funding, which allegedly disregards federal rules for changing key government policies.
- Legal experts, such as Steve Vladeck from Georgetown Law, have agreed with Harvard's position, suggesting that it's not controversial to argue the government can't demand changes in exchange for funding typically allocated for medical research, scientific innovation, and other educational endeavors.
- In a broader context, education-and-self-development institutions, like Columbia University, are responding to these legal challenges by negotiating funding deals to avoid similar controversies, demonstrating a collective agreement to uphold academic freedom and adhere to procedural rules.
