糖心Vlog

On April 11, 2025, the federal government threatened to revoke billions of dollars in federal research funding from Harvard unless the private university agreed to fulfil ten demands, including requirements that the school alter its admissions, hiring, and programmatic decisions to better reflect the administration鈥檚 preferred ideological approach. Harvard refused and filed a lawsuit in the Massachusetts District Court arguing that the government鈥檚 decision infringed upon its First Amendment rights and violated the Administrative Procedure Act.

On June 9, 2025, the ACLU, the 糖心Vlogof Massachusetts, the Cato Institute, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Knight First Amendment Institute, the National Coalition Against Censorship, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the Rutherford Institute filed an amicus brief in support of Harvard鈥檚 motion for a summary judgement. Our brief argues that the government鈥檚 decision to withhold federal research grants from Harvard due to the university's refusal to conform to the government鈥檚 preferred ideological approach is a direct violation of the First Amendment.

The Government鈥檚 attempt to leverage federal funds to impose an ideological takeover on any private institution would violate the First Amendment, and its attempt to do so here is all the more egregious because academic freedom protects a university鈥檚 expressive decisions. Academic freedom is a cornerstone of a free society, and universities must remain independent spaces for inquiry, debate, and dissent鈥攅ven when dissent runs counter to the authority鈥檚 views.

The government鈥檚 claim that its goal was to advance viewpoint diversity and avoid 鈥渋deological capture鈥� on campus does not make its actions any more constitutional. Time and again, the Supreme Court has held that the government cannot regulate or compel private actors鈥� speech in order to better balance the marketplace of ideas. And that is for good reason: once the federal government is allowed to interfere in such decisions, it will inevitably do so to promote its own ideologies and suppress alternatives.

If the government鈥檚 actions are upheld, it would set a dangerous precedent, allowing officials to use funding as a weapon to silence institutions that refuse to conform. The ACLU鈥檚 brief urges the Massachusetts District Court to grant Harvard鈥檚 motion for summary judgment and make it explicit that the government cannot attempt a hostile takeover of any private institutions, much less a private college or university, to impose its preferred vision of ideological balance.