Judge Dismisses Trump’s Antisemitism Lawsuit Against Harvard

A federal district court dismissed one of the Trump administration’s lawsuits against Harvard University on Thursday, ruling that the executive branch failed to prove the institution was continuously violating civil rights law in a way that inhibited Jewish students’ ability to learn.

“The court begins (and ends) with Harvard’s first argument,” the judge wrote. “The Government has not sufficiently pled an ongoing violation of Title VI.” (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bans discrimination based on race, color or national origin, including antisemitism and Islamophobia.)

Most of the examples the Justice Department cited in its complaint occurred before the federal government told Harvard on June 30, 2025, that it was not in compliance with federal law. But in order to succeed in its lawsuit, Richard Stearns, the federal judge overseeing the case, said the Department of Justice needed to show evidence of continued noncompliance after the initial notice was issued.

“Congress’s intent was not to penalize a wayward funding recipient but instead to incentivize it to bring itself into compliance with Title VI,” wrote Stearns, a Massachusetts district judge.

This is just one of many ways President Trump and his Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism have attempted to crack down on universities for alleged religious and ethnic discrimination. In March 2025, the administration withheld $400 million in federal funding from Columbia University, presenting the Ivy League institution with a list of demands, to which the university acquiesced. This year, the Justice Department has sued the University of California twice related to allegations of antisemitism at UCLA.

The Department of Justice initially filed the now-dismissed suit against Harvard in March. In the complaint, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon argued that Harvard has “remained deliberately indifferent to a level of hostility” and submitted a “toothless non-response to the ongoing relentless antisemitic on-campus discrimination.”

In doing so, the DOJ said Harvard violated Title VI and therefore breached the contracts it signed to receive federal funding. As a remedy, the government sought to recover billions in federal funds awarded to the institution over the years.

Stearns, a Clinton appointee, acknowledged that the individual instances of antisemitism the DOJ used as evidence are concerning, but he said they are not enough to “sufficiently” back the claim. Specifically, he noted that only three of the examples cited in the complaint allegedly occurred after the 2023–24 academic year, when a wave of pro-Palestinian protests took place on campuses across the country.

So, “without diminishing any concern arising from these occurrences, the court finds [the incidents cited], singly and collectively, to be too isolated and episodic to support a plausible inference that any institutionalized noncompliance with Title VI persists at Harvard to this day,” he wrote.

Dhillon said in a statement that she “disagree[s] with the ruling” and is “assessing next steps,” but she hasn’t said whether the DOJ will appeal.

Thursday’s decision marks the second time Trump has lost to Harvard in its yearslong battle. From the beginning, the administration described the ongoing campaign as an effort to address alleged antisemitism at the Ivy League institution. But investigations, funding freezes and demands show that the administration sought to accomplish far more than just cracking down on discrimination against Jewish students; it was also pressuring Harvard to adopt certain policy changes in admissions, research and hiring that align with the president’s priorities.

However, the university has largely resisted the administration’s efforts and successfully sued to restore the funds in the case Harvard v. Health and Human Services.

Since then, the Trump administration has appealed the funding lawsuit to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The appeal is still pending, but several universities and higher ed associations have submitted briefs in support of Harvard.

The First Circuit is also considering the administration’s appeal of a separate lower court order that blocks the Department of Homeland Security from revoking Harvard’s ability to enroll international students. Oral arguments in that case are scheduled for October.

Harvard and the administration are also facing off in a separate lawsuit over whether the university complied with a federal investigation into whether its admissions processes are discriminatory. The Justice Department sued the university in February, and Harvard is seeking to dismiss that case. A judge will hear arguments at a Sept. 24 hearing.

FURTHER ARGUMENTS

For Harvard, the now-dismissed antisemitism lawsuit was nothing more than Trump’s “latest volley” in an “unlawful campaign,” according to court filings.

In its motion to dismiss, the university pointed to the ruling in Harvard v. Health and Human Services in which a different judge in the same court called Trump’s effort a “government-initiated onslaught” that was far more about “promoting government orthodoxy” than addressing antisemitism. Harvard argued this case, USA v. Harvard, was no different.

“It retreads allegations already tested and rejected in court, seeks relief Congress has not authorized, and attempts to convert disagreement with the university’s management of difficult and highly charged campus activity into violations of federal law,” the motion reads. As such, “the Government’s claims are barred in their entirety under the First Amendment.”

But the DOJ pushed back, taking aim at the university’s argument that the administration presented insufficient evidence of ongoing antisemitism. The agency argued that if the government needed to go that far to prove a claim, it would be “virtually impossible for the United States to win a Title VI suit.”

Any “reasonable defendant would cease its indifference as soon as the United States threatens to withhold funding,” the DOJ said.

Ultimately, Stearns sided with Harvard—though he only directly addressed its first argument about sufficient evidence.

Title VI “unequivocally” authorizes the executive branch to penalize an institution “only if and after” it has advised the university and determined voluntary compliance is not possible, he explained in his final ruling. The DOJ may argue in its “fevered forewarning of potential havoc” that such standards would make it very difficult to penalize an institution, Stearns added, but that’s the point.

Stearns did note that his ruling will only apply to cases where there is not enough evidence to demonstrate ongoing noncompliance. So, “if comfort is needed,” he said, “the court’s ruling does not have as broad an impact as the Government asserts.”

DON’T MISS NEARLY 900 HBS ALUMNI AMONG RECORD 10,982 HARVARD GRADS BACKING UNIVERSITY IN TRUMP FUNDING FIGHT

© Copyright 2026 Poets & Quants. All rights reserved. This article may not be republished, rewritten or otherwise distributed without written permission. To reprint or license this article or any content from Poets & Quants, please submit your request HERE.