Judge Dismisses Trump Admin’s Antisemitism Lawsuit Against Harvard
“As noted above, the Amended Complaint is devoid of any factual allegations plausibly establishing that any events that might be construed as evidence of noncompliance occurred after June 30, 2025.”
U.S. District Court Judge Richard G. Stearns of Massachusetts dismissed the Trump administration’s antisemitism lawsuit against Harvard.
The DOJ filed the lawsuit in March 2026.
The administration argued that Harvard should not receive federal funds for failing to protect Jewish students and allowing antisemitism on its campus.
Harvard asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit because the administration did not prove that the university has continued to violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, that the lawsuit is unlawful retaliation, and that no breach of contract occurred.
Stearns only addressed the first argument.
Stearns said the complaint focuses almost entirely on incidents during the 2023-2024 school year and only three from March 2025.
“Without diminishing any concern arising from these occurrences, the court finds them, 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,” wrote Stearns.
The administration notified Harvard of alleged failure to comply with Title VI on June 30, 2025.
“As noted above, the Amended Complaint is devoid of any factual allegations plausibly establishing that any events that might be construed as evidence of noncompliance occurred after June 30, 2025,” said Stearns.
The judge also shot down the argument that dismissing the lawsuit would make it “virtually impossible for the United States to win a Title VI suit because a reasonable defendant would cease its indifference as soon as the United States threatens to withhold funding,” saying the administration “misconstrues” why we have enforcement action.
“Congress’s intent was not to penalize a wayward funding recipient but instead to incentivize it to bring itself into compliance with Title VI,” stressed Stearns. “Even in the Government’s fevered forewarning of potential havoc, it concedes that its own hypothetical result is a positive, if roughly achieved, outcome.”
However, Stearns’s decision is narrow.
“If comfort is needed, the court’s ruling does not have as broad an impact as the Government asserts,” concluded Stearns. “This decision is limited to the specific circumstances presented here, where there is no plausible allegation of noncompliance following statutory notice.”
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Are 3 incidents after being put on notice 9 months prior not enough?
Not if you’re a Clinton appointee working in Massachusetts.
No fair invoking a 3 strikes rule for Academia as if they were ..gasp …common criminals. They are so very much more intellectual, so very much more entitled, so very much more sophisticated than the common ruck of criminal …largely b/c they’re inseparable from the systems of accountability as their alumni tentacles control the levers of power within those systems. Case in point Judge Stearns holds his JD from Harvard ’76 and IMO shouldn’t be hearing this case but of course he didn’t recuse himself from the opportunity to protect the institution where he eared his JD. Presumably I am just a crass plebeian for even mentioning this potential conflict of interest and/or potential appearance of impropriety which might give the appearance of inherent bias.
This judge is clinton appointment and a harvard law graduate. He should have recused himself for the latter.
He’s also left wing, I would have said he’s as left wing as can be but he’s not a socialist as far as I can tell but who knows.
This decision is a travesty. It is readily observable to even a casual observer that Harvard hires antisemites and ignores incidents of campus antisemitism. However at 82 this judge may be senile, has nothing to lose, probably wants to protect his alma mater, and likely doesn’t care about Jews anyway.
A woke jurist producing a woke ruling in favor of the woke defendant. Have I missed any relevant points?
Sounds like the judge is an anti-semite. Probably should be removed from the bench
So what will Trump do
Antisemitism is legal. A lot of things that might be antisemitic are not but are their own crimes, nothing Jewish. The lawsuit ought to be about the crimes, not the grouping. No intimidation of anybody.
That is incorrect. Antisemitic activity can be illegal under Title VI, which has been construed as prohibiting discrimination based on Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Amish, etc. when individuals are targeted on the basis of their ethnic and religious identities, despite Title VI not covering discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs or practices.
The lawsuit is about a civil, not a criminal offense.
he went to Harvard and Harvard Law, shouldn’t he be recused?
He went to Stanford and was a Rhodes Scholar. It’s interesting, he was 24 when he graduated from college and 32 when he graduated from Harvard Law.
A Clinton judge and a Harvard alumni. Nope. Absolutely no bias here.
Leave a Comment