[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-200211-105":53,"doc-detail-200211-en":127},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":120,"head_meta":122,"extra_data":124,"updated_unix":126},105,"en","order-harvard-aaup-harvard-v-usdoj-sept-3-2025-memorandum-and-order","Order-Harvard-AAUP-Harvard-v-USDOJ-Sept-3-2025 - Memorandum and Order","","Federal court memoranda and orders in related suits between Harvard and the American Association of University Professors’ Harvard chapter, along with organizational plaintiffs, against U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Justice. Plaintiffs challenge the freeze and termination of nearly $2.2 billion in federal grants, arguing First Amendment retaliation, noncompliance with Title VI procedural requirements, and arbitrary and capricious agency action. The order addresses cross motions for summary judgment and sets out background facts concerning Harvard’s antisemitism task force and the agencies funding its research programs.",{"@graph":63,"@context":119},[64,80,102],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":41,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/order-harvard-aaup-harvard-v-usdoj-sept-3-2025-memorandum-and-order/200211/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/order-harvard-aaup-harvard-v-usdoj-sept-3-2025-memorandum-and-order/200211.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Chloe Bennett","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-06","2026-09-04",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":101},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",8,{"@type":103,"mainEntity":104},"FAQPage",[105,111,115],{"name":106,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":108},"What decision do the plaintiffs challenge in these related suits?","Question",{"text":109,"@type":110},"Plaintiffs challenge the decision to freeze and then terminate nearly $2.2 billion in federal grants to Harvard.","Answer",{"name":112,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":113},"On what primary grounds do plaintiffs argue the grant freeze and termination are unlawful?",{"text":114,"@type":110},"Plaintiffs assert the funding decisions violated the First Amendment, failed to meet procedural requirements under Title VI, and were arbitrary and capricious due to inadequate reasoning and consideration of reliance and grant importance.",{"name":116,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":117},"How is the case posture described at the time of the memorandum and order?",{"text":118,"@type":110},"Cross motions for summary judgment are before the court, with Harvard and defendants seeking summary judgment on all claims and the organizational plaintiffs seeking summary judgment on specific claims.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":121,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":123,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":125,"site_id":56},200211,1788508253,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":128},{"doc_id":125,"user_id":129,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":130,"doc_module":9,"category_id":40,"category_name":41,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":131,"file_id":132,"file_url":133,"file_type":134,"file_size":135,"view_count":101,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":136,"language":137,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":138,"faqs":139,"seo_title":140,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":126,"read_time":141},962084925782,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_9964176cb1d06d4a9deccf72a44ae3dc","UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS  \nPRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE, et al.,  \nPlaintiffs,  \nv.  \nUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al.,  \nDefendants.  \nAMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS – HARVARD CHAPTER, et al.,  \nPlaintiffs,  \nv.  \nUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al.,  \nDefendants.  \n*  \n*  \n*  \n*  \n*  \n*  \n* Civil Action No. 25-cv-11048-ADB *  \n*  \n*  \n*  \n*  \n*  \n*  \n*  \n*  \n*  \n*  \n*  \n* Civil Action No. 25-cv-10910-ADB *  \n*  \n*  \n*  \n*  \n*  \nMEMORANDUM AND ORDER  \nBURROUGHS, D.J.  \nPlaintiffs President and Fellows of Harvard College (“Harvard”), the American Association of University Professors (“AAUP”), the AAUP–Harvard Faculty Chapter (“AAUPHarvard”), the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement  \nWorkers of America (“UAW”), the Harvard Graduate Students Union (“HGSU–UAW”), and Harvard Academic Workers (“HAW–UAW”) (the “Organizational Plaintiffs” and, collectively with Harvard,“Plaintiffs”) bring two related suits against various federal agencies and agency heads (collectively, the “Defendants”), challenging the decision to freeze and ultimately terminate nearly $2.2 billion in federal grants to Harvard. 1  \nMore specifically, Plaintiffs collectively challenge the decision to freeze and then terminate the grants on three primary grounds, contending that (1) the funding decisions were made in response to Harvard’s refusal to capitulate to Defendants’ content-and viewpoint-based demands and its subsequent decision to file a lawsuit, in violation of the First Amendment; (2) the grant terminations did not comply with the procedural requirements of Title VI and are thus invalid; and (3) Defendants acted arbitrarily and capriciously when they froze and subsequently terminated funding to Harvard, as they failed to provide a reasoned explanation for how or why freezing and terminating funding would further the goal of ending antisemitism, to weigh the importance of the grants they sought to terminate, and to consider decades of reliance engendered through their prior practice of funding research at Harvard. Defendants’ initial and primary argument in response is that this Court lacks jurisdiction over these claims, all of which belong in the Federal Court of Claims pursuant to the Tucker Act.  \nCurrently before the Court are the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment. In particular, Harvard and Defendants both move for summary judgment as to all Harvard’s claims.  \n1 These two related suits are President & Fellows of Harvard College v. United States Department of Health & Human Services, et al., 25-cv-11048 (D. Mass. April 21, 2025) and American Association of University Professors – Harvard Faculty Chapter et al. v. United States Department of Justice, et al., 25-cv-10910 (D. Mass. April 11, 2025) . The dockets for the two suits, when cited, are referred to as “Harvard” and “AAUP.”  \n[Harvard, ECF No. 69; Harvard, ECF No. 185] . Defendants move for summary judgment as to all of the Organizational Plaintiffs’ claims, while the Organizational Plaintiffs move for summary judgment only as to their First Amendment, Title VI, and arbitrary and capricious claims, but not their separation of powers, spending clause, and due process claims. [AAUP, ECF No. 74; AAUP, ECF No. 103] . For the reasons stated herein, Harvard’s motion for summary judgment, [Harvard, ECF No. 69], is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART ; the Organizational Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, [AAUP, ECF No. 74], is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; and Defendants’ motions for summary judgment, [Harvard, ECF No. 185; AAUP, ECF No. 103], are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.  \nI. BACKGROUND  \nA. Material Facts 2  \n1. Harvard and its Task Force on Combatting Antisemitism  \nHarvard University is the oldest institution of higher learning in the United States and oneof the world’s leading research universities. [Harvard SOF ¶ 1] . As of April 14","cbCaid3FzrEQzySJ","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaid3FzrEQzySJ","pdf",429643,84,"English","# Memorandum and Order\n## Parties and Claims\n## Cross Motions for Summary Judgment\n## Background\n### Material Facts\n### Harvard and Its Task Force on Combatting Antisemitism","[{\"question\":\"What decision do the plaintiffs challenge in these related suits?\",\"answer\":\"Plaintiffs challenge the decision to freeze and then terminate nearly $2.2 billion in federal grants to Harvard.\"},{\"question\":\"On what primary grounds do plaintiffs argue the grant freeze and termination are unlawful?\",\"answer\":\"Plaintiffs assert the funding decisions violated the First Amendment, failed to meet procedural requirements under Title VI, and were arbitrary and capricious due to inadequate reasoning and consideration of reliance and grant importance.\"},{\"question\":\"How is the case posture described at the time of the memorandum and order?\",\"answer\":\"Cross motions for summary judgment are before the court, with Harvard and defendants seeking summary judgment on all claims and the organizational plaintiffs seeking summary judgment on specific claims.\"}]","Order-Harvard-AAUP-Harvard-v-USDOJ-Sept-3-2025 - Memorandum and Order | PDF",29]