A federal judge in Boston on Thursday dismissed a Trump administration lawsuit that accused Harvard University of turning a blind eye to harassment of Jewish students.
The decision from U.S. District Judge Richard G. Stearns said President Trump’s administration failed to prove an ongoing violation of federal civil rights laws. The judge said the lawsuit, filed in March, mostly focuses on incidents that took place in the 2023-24 academic year, with a few from March 2025.
The cases were “too isolated and episodic” to prove a persistent civil rights violation at the Ivy League campus in Cambridge, Mass., the judge said.
Harvard and the Department of Justice did not immediately provide comment on the decision.
The lawsuit accused Harvard of failing to protect Jewish students during pro-Palestinian demonstrations that roiled the campus after Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel. The Trump administration argued Harvard officials did nothing as Jewish students were “harassed, physically assaulted, stalked, and spat upon.”
In a statement after the lawsuit was filed, Harvard said it “cares deeply about members of our Jewish and Israeli community and remains committed to ensuring they are embraced, respected, and can thrive on our campus.”
Harvard President Alan M. Garber says the university formed a task force to combat antisemitism. The university also hired a new provost and new deans and reformed its discipline policies to make them “more consistent, fair and effective,” Garber has said.
The government’s case sought to recover billions of dollars in federal research grants awarded to Harvard since October 2023. Trump officials argued they had a right to recoup the money under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law barring discrimination based on race or national origin.
The case shares similarities with one the government filed in May against the University of California, although that litigation is in earlier phases than the Harvard case and is assigned to a different judge in a Los Angeles-based federal district court.
The Harvard lawsuit is among several actions the government has taken against the university since the Ivy League school refused a list of demands made by the White House after Trump, a Republican, returned to office last year. Trump officials have separately sought to cut Harvard’s research funding and limit its ability to enroll foreign students and U.S. military members.
In a separate legal case last year, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to reverse more than $2.6 billion in federal funding cuts to Harvard. That decision found that the White House put unconstitutional conditions on federal funding, using antisemitism as a “smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault” on universities.
Despite their bitter dispute, Harvard and the Trump administration have held some negotiations, and Trump himself said the two sides had been close to reaching an agreement. But when the Justice Department filed this civil rights lawsuit in March, it pointed to an extraordinary impasse. When colleges are found in violation of federal civil rights law, they almost always reach compliance through voluntary agreements.
Could the case affect UC court battles?
UC faces its own federal civil rights suits over allegations of campus antisemitism tied to pro-Palestinian protests, though the university has not moved to dismiss the cases.
Stearns’ ruling does not directly affect federal courts in California, but it could shape arguments if UC asks a judge to throw out the claims against it.
The closest parallel to the Harvard case is a lawsuit the Justice Department filed in May against UC in federal court in Los Angeles.
That suit alleges UCLA tolerated a hostile environment for Jewish and Israeli students during 2024 pro-Palestinian protests, citing the same civil rights law the government cited in the Harvard case.
The Boston judge found that Harvard’s case relied mainly on incidents from 2023 and 2024. The UCLA lawsuit points to incidents the Trump administration says happened after it formally notified the university of alleged civil rights violations in July 2025, including events between October 2025 and January 2026.
UC also faces a separate lawsuit the department filed in February, which accuses the university of a pattern of discriminating against Jewish and Israeli employees. That case relies on a different civil rights law — one covering workplace discrimination — than the student-centered Harvard and UCLA cases. Due to that difference, Thursday’s ruling would not directly affect the employment discrimination case.
The legal fights involving UC follow a dispute over a $1.2-billion settlement the Trump administration demanded from UCLA last August. A proposal tied to that settlement sought sweeping ideological and cultural changes on campus. A federal judge blocked much of the proposal in November.
Binkley writes for the Associated Press. Kaleem is Times staff writer.
A federal judge in Boston on Thursday dismissed a Trump administration lawsuit that accused Harvard University of turning a blind eye to harassment of Jewish students.
The decision from U.S. District Judge Richard G. Stearns said President Trump’s administration failed to prove an ongoing violation of federal civil rights laws. The judge said the lawsuit, filed in March, mostly focuses on incidents that took place in the 2023-24 academic year, with a few from March 2025.
The cases were “too isolated and episodic” to prove a persistent civil rights violation at the Ivy League campus in Cambridge, Mass., the judge said.
Harvard and the Department of Justice did not immediately provide comment on the decision.
The lawsuit accused Harvard of failing to protect Jewish students during pro-Palestinian demonstrations that roiled the campus after Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel. The Trump administration argued Harvard officials did nothing as Jewish students were “harassed, physically assaulted, stalked, and spat upon.”
In a statement after the lawsuit was filed, Harvard said it “cares deeply about members of our Jewish and Israeli community and remains committed to ensuring they are embraced, respected, and can thrive on our campus.”
Harvard President Alan M. Garber says the university formed a task force to combat antisemitism. The university also hired a new provost and new deans and reformed its discipline policies to make them “more consistent, fair and effective,” Garber has said.
The government’s case sought to recover billions of dollars in federal research grants awarded to Harvard since October 2023. Trump officials argued they had a right to recoup the money under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law barring discrimination based on race or national origin.
The case shares similarities with one the government filed in May against the University of California, although that litigation is in earlier phases than the Harvard case and is assigned to a different judge in a Los Angeles-based federal district court.
The Harvard lawsuit is among several actions the government has taken against the university since the Ivy League school refused a list of demands made by the White House after Trump, a Republican, returned to office last year. Trump officials have separately sought to cut Harvard’s research funding and limit its ability to enroll foreign students and U.S. military members.
In a separate legal case last year, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to reverse more than $2.6 billion in federal funding cuts to Harvard. That decision found that the White House put unconstitutional conditions on federal funding, using antisemitism as a “smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault” on universities.
Despite their bitter dispute, Harvard and the Trump administration have held some negotiations, and Trump himself said the two sides had been close to reaching an agreement. But when the Justice Department filed this civil rights lawsuit in March, it pointed to an extraordinary impasse. When colleges are found in violation of federal civil rights law, they almost always reach compliance through voluntary agreements.
Could the case affect UC court battles?
UC faces its own federal civil rights suits over allegations of campus antisemitism tied to pro-Palestinian protests, though the university has not moved to dismiss the cases.
Stearns’ ruling does not directly affect federal courts in California, but it could shape arguments if UC asks a judge to throw out the claims against it.
The closest parallel to the Harvard case is a lawsuit the Justice Department filed in May against UC in federal court in Los Angeles.
That suit alleges UCLA tolerated a hostile environment for Jewish and Israeli students during 2024 pro-Palestinian protests, citing the same civil rights law the government cited in the Harvard case.
The Boston judge found that Harvard’s case relied mainly on incidents from 2023 and 2024. The UCLA lawsuit points to incidents the Trump administration says happened after it formally notified the university of alleged civil rights violations in July 2025, including events between October 2025 and January 2026.
UC also faces a separate lawsuit the department filed in February, which accuses the university of a pattern of discriminating against Jewish and Israeli employees. That case relies on a different civil rights law — one covering workplace discrimination — than the student-centered Harvard and UCLA cases. Due to that difference, Thursday’s ruling would not directly affect the employment discrimination case.
The legal fights involving UC follow a dispute over a $1.2-billion settlement the Trump administration demanded from UCLA last August. A proposal tied to that settlement sought sweeping ideological and cultural changes on campus. A federal judge blocked much of the proposal in November.
Binkley writes for the Associated Press. Kaleem is Times staff writer.
A federal judge in Boston on Thursday dismissed a Trump administration lawsuit that accused Harvard University of turning a blind eye to harassment of Jewish students.
The decision from U.S. District Judge Richard G. Stearns said President Trump’s administration failed to prove an ongoing violation of federal civil rights laws. The judge said the lawsuit, filed in March, mostly focuses on incidents that took place in the 2023-24 academic year, with a few from March 2025.
The cases were “too isolated and episodic” to prove a persistent civil rights violation at the Ivy League campus in Cambridge, Mass., the judge said.
Harvard and the Department of Justice did not immediately provide comment on the decision.
The lawsuit accused Harvard of failing to protect Jewish students during pro-Palestinian demonstrations that roiled the campus after Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel. The Trump administration argued Harvard officials did nothing as Jewish students were “harassed, physically assaulted, stalked, and spat upon.”
In a statement after the lawsuit was filed, Harvard said it “cares deeply about members of our Jewish and Israeli community and remains committed to ensuring they are embraced, respected, and can thrive on our campus.”
Harvard President Alan M. Garber says the university formed a task force to combat antisemitism. The university also hired a new provost and new deans and reformed its discipline policies to make them “more consistent, fair and effective,” Garber has said.
The government’s case sought to recover billions of dollars in federal research grants awarded to Harvard since October 2023. Trump officials argued they had a right to recoup the money under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law barring discrimination based on race or national origin.
The case shares similarities with one the government filed in May against the University of California, although that litigation is in earlier phases than the Harvard case and is assigned to a different judge in a Los Angeles-based federal district court.
The Harvard lawsuit is among several actions the government has taken against the university since the Ivy League school refused a list of demands made by the White House after Trump, a Republican, returned to office last year. Trump officials have separately sought to cut Harvard’s research funding and limit its ability to enroll foreign students and U.S. military members.
In a separate legal case last year, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to reverse more than $2.6 billion in federal funding cuts to Harvard. That decision found that the White House put unconstitutional conditions on federal funding, using antisemitism as a “smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault” on universities.
Despite their bitter dispute, Harvard and the Trump administration have held some negotiations, and Trump himself said the two sides had been close to reaching an agreement. But when the Justice Department filed this civil rights lawsuit in March, it pointed to an extraordinary impasse. When colleges are found in violation of federal civil rights law, they almost always reach compliance through voluntary agreements.
Could the case affect UC court battles?
UC faces its own federal civil rights suits over allegations of campus antisemitism tied to pro-Palestinian protests, though the university has not moved to dismiss the cases.
Stearns’ ruling does not directly affect federal courts in California, but it could shape arguments if UC asks a judge to throw out the claims against it.
The closest parallel to the Harvard case is a lawsuit the Justice Department filed in May against UC in federal court in Los Angeles.
That suit alleges UCLA tolerated a hostile environment for Jewish and Israeli students during 2024 pro-Palestinian protests, citing the same civil rights law the government cited in the Harvard case.
The Boston judge found that Harvard’s case relied mainly on incidents from 2023 and 2024. The UCLA lawsuit points to incidents the Trump administration says happened after it formally notified the university of alleged civil rights violations in July 2025, including events between October 2025 and January 2026.
UC also faces a separate lawsuit the department filed in February, which accuses the university of a pattern of discriminating against Jewish and Israeli employees. That case relies on a different civil rights law — one covering workplace discrimination — than the student-centered Harvard and UCLA cases. Due to that difference, Thursday’s ruling would not directly affect the employment discrimination case.
The legal fights involving UC follow a dispute over a $1.2-billion settlement the Trump administration demanded from UCLA last August. A proposal tied to that settlement sought sweeping ideological and cultural changes on campus. A federal judge blocked much of the proposal in November.
Binkley writes for the Associated Press. Kaleem is Times staff writer.
A federal judge in Boston on Thursday dismissed a Trump administration lawsuit that accused Harvard University of turning a blind eye to harassment of Jewish students.
The decision from U.S. District Judge Richard G. Stearns said President Trump’s administration failed to prove an ongoing violation of federal civil rights laws. The judge said the lawsuit, filed in March, mostly focuses on incidents that took place in the 2023-24 academic year, with a few from March 2025.
The cases were “too isolated and episodic” to prove a persistent civil rights violation at the Ivy League campus in Cambridge, Mass., the judge said.
Harvard and the Department of Justice did not immediately provide comment on the decision.
The lawsuit accused Harvard of failing to protect Jewish students during pro-Palestinian demonstrations that roiled the campus after Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel. The Trump administration argued Harvard officials did nothing as Jewish students were “harassed, physically assaulted, stalked, and spat upon.”
In a statement after the lawsuit was filed, Harvard said it “cares deeply about members of our Jewish and Israeli community and remains committed to ensuring they are embraced, respected, and can thrive on our campus.”
Harvard President Alan M. Garber says the university formed a task force to combat antisemitism. The university also hired a new provost and new deans and reformed its discipline policies to make them “more consistent, fair and effective,” Garber has said.
The government’s case sought to recover billions of dollars in federal research grants awarded to Harvard since October 2023. Trump officials argued they had a right to recoup the money under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law barring discrimination based on race or national origin.
The case shares similarities with one the government filed in May against the University of California, although that litigation is in earlier phases than the Harvard case and is assigned to a different judge in a Los Angeles-based federal district court.
The Harvard lawsuit is among several actions the government has taken against the university since the Ivy League school refused a list of demands made by the White House after Trump, a Republican, returned to office last year. Trump officials have separately sought to cut Harvard’s research funding and limit its ability to enroll foreign students and U.S. military members.
In a separate legal case last year, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to reverse more than $2.6 billion in federal funding cuts to Harvard. That decision found that the White House put unconstitutional conditions on federal funding, using antisemitism as a “smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault” on universities.
Despite their bitter dispute, Harvard and the Trump administration have held some negotiations, and Trump himself said the two sides had been close to reaching an agreement. But when the Justice Department filed this civil rights lawsuit in March, it pointed to an extraordinary impasse. When colleges are found in violation of federal civil rights law, they almost always reach compliance through voluntary agreements.
Could the case affect UC court battles?
UC faces its own federal civil rights suits over allegations of campus antisemitism tied to pro-Palestinian protests, though the university has not moved to dismiss the cases.
Stearns’ ruling does not directly affect federal courts in California, but it could shape arguments if UC asks a judge to throw out the claims against it.
The closest parallel to the Harvard case is a lawsuit the Justice Department filed in May against UC in federal court in Los Angeles.
That suit alleges UCLA tolerated a hostile environment for Jewish and Israeli students during 2024 pro-Palestinian protests, citing the same civil rights law the government cited in the Harvard case.
The Boston judge found that Harvard’s case relied mainly on incidents from 2023 and 2024. The UCLA lawsuit points to incidents the Trump administration says happened after it formally notified the university of alleged civil rights violations in July 2025, including events between October 2025 and January 2026.
UC also faces a separate lawsuit the department filed in February, which accuses the university of a pattern of discriminating against Jewish and Israeli employees. That case relies on a different civil rights law — one covering workplace discrimination — than the student-centered Harvard and UCLA cases. Due to that difference, Thursday’s ruling would not directly affect the employment discrimination case.
The legal fights involving UC follow a dispute over a $1.2-billion settlement the Trump administration demanded from UCLA last August. A proposal tied to that settlement sought sweeping ideological and cultural changes on campus. A federal judge blocked much of the proposal in November.
Binkley writes for the Associated Press. Kaleem is Times staff writer.
A federal judge in Boston on Thursday dismissed a Trump administration lawsuit that accused Harvard University of turning a blind eye to harassment of Jewish students.
The decision from U.S. District Judge Richard G. Stearns said President Trump’s administration failed to prove an ongoing violation of federal civil rights laws. The judge said the lawsuit, filed in March, mostly focuses on incidents that took place in the 2023-24 academic year, with a few from March 2025.
The cases were “too isolated and episodic” to prove a persistent civil rights violation at the Ivy League campus in Cambridge, Mass., the judge said.
Harvard and the Department of Justice did not immediately provide comment on the decision.
The lawsuit accused Harvard of failing to protect Jewish students during pro-Palestinian demonstrations that roiled the campus after Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel. The Trump administration argued Harvard officials did nothing as Jewish students were “harassed, physically assaulted, stalked, and spat upon.”
In a statement after the lawsuit was filed, Harvard said it “cares deeply about members of our Jewish and Israeli community and remains committed to ensuring they are embraced, respected, and can thrive on our campus.”
Harvard President Alan M. Garber says the university formed a task force to combat antisemitism. The university also hired a new provost and new deans and reformed its discipline policies to make them “more consistent, fair and effective,” Garber has said.
The government’s case sought to recover billions of dollars in federal research grants awarded to Harvard since October 2023. Trump officials argued they had a right to recoup the money under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law barring discrimination based on race or national origin.
The case shares similarities with one the government filed in May against the University of California, although that litigation is in earlier phases than the Harvard case and is assigned to a different judge in a Los Angeles-based federal district court.
The Harvard lawsuit is among several actions the government has taken against the university since the Ivy League school refused a list of demands made by the White House after Trump, a Republican, returned to office last year. Trump officials have separately sought to cut Harvard’s research funding and limit its ability to enroll foreign students and U.S. military members.
In a separate legal case last year, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to reverse more than $2.6 billion in federal funding cuts to Harvard. That decision found that the White House put unconstitutional conditions on federal funding, using antisemitism as a “smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault” on universities.
Despite their bitter dispute, Harvard and the Trump administration have held some negotiations, and Trump himself said the two sides had been close to reaching an agreement. But when the Justice Department filed this civil rights lawsuit in March, it pointed to an extraordinary impasse. When colleges are found in violation of federal civil rights law, they almost always reach compliance through voluntary agreements.
Could the case affect UC court battles?
UC faces its own federal civil rights suits over allegations of campus antisemitism tied to pro-Palestinian protests, though the university has not moved to dismiss the cases.
Stearns’ ruling does not directly affect federal courts in California, but it could shape arguments if UC asks a judge to throw out the claims against it.
The closest parallel to the Harvard case is a lawsuit the Justice Department filed in May against UC in federal court in Los Angeles.
That suit alleges UCLA tolerated a hostile environment for Jewish and Israeli students during 2024 pro-Palestinian protests, citing the same civil rights law the government cited in the Harvard case.
The Boston judge found that Harvard’s case relied mainly on incidents from 2023 and 2024. The UCLA lawsuit points to incidents the Trump administration says happened after it formally notified the university of alleged civil rights violations in July 2025, including events between October 2025 and January 2026.
UC also faces a separate lawsuit the department filed in February, which accuses the university of a pattern of discriminating against Jewish and Israeli employees. That case relies on a different civil rights law — one covering workplace discrimination — than the student-centered Harvard and UCLA cases. Due to that difference, Thursday’s ruling would not directly affect the employment discrimination case.
The legal fights involving UC follow a dispute over a $1.2-billion settlement the Trump administration demanded from UCLA last August. A proposal tied to that settlement sought sweeping ideological and cultural changes on campus. A federal judge blocked much of the proposal in November.
Binkley writes for the Associated Press. Kaleem is Times staff writer.
A federal judge in Boston on Thursday dismissed a Trump administration lawsuit that accused Harvard University of turning a blind eye to harassment of Jewish students.
The decision from U.S. District Judge Richard G. Stearns said President Trump’s administration failed to prove an ongoing violation of federal civil rights laws. The judge said the lawsuit, filed in March, mostly focuses on incidents that took place in the 2023-24 academic year, with a few from March 2025.
The cases were “too isolated and episodic” to prove a persistent civil rights violation at the Ivy League campus in Cambridge, Mass., the judge said.
Harvard and the Department of Justice did not immediately provide comment on the decision.
The lawsuit accused Harvard of failing to protect Jewish students during pro-Palestinian demonstrations that roiled the campus after Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel. The Trump administration argued Harvard officials did nothing as Jewish students were “harassed, physically assaulted, stalked, and spat upon.”
In a statement after the lawsuit was filed, Harvard said it “cares deeply about members of our Jewish and Israeli community and remains committed to ensuring they are embraced, respected, and can thrive on our campus.”
Harvard President Alan M. Garber says the university formed a task force to combat antisemitism. The university also hired a new provost and new deans and reformed its discipline policies to make them “more consistent, fair and effective,” Garber has said.
The government’s case sought to recover billions of dollars in federal research grants awarded to Harvard since October 2023. Trump officials argued they had a right to recoup the money under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law barring discrimination based on race or national origin.
The case shares similarities with one the government filed in May against the University of California, although that litigation is in earlier phases than the Harvard case and is assigned to a different judge in a Los Angeles-based federal district court.
The Harvard lawsuit is among several actions the government has taken against the university since the Ivy League school refused a list of demands made by the White House after Trump, a Republican, returned to office last year. Trump officials have separately sought to cut Harvard’s research funding and limit its ability to enroll foreign students and U.S. military members.
In a separate legal case last year, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to reverse more than $2.6 billion in federal funding cuts to Harvard. That decision found that the White House put unconstitutional conditions on federal funding, using antisemitism as a “smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault” on universities.
Despite their bitter dispute, Harvard and the Trump administration have held some negotiations, and Trump himself said the two sides had been close to reaching an agreement. But when the Justice Department filed this civil rights lawsuit in March, it pointed to an extraordinary impasse. When colleges are found in violation of federal civil rights law, they almost always reach compliance through voluntary agreements.
Could the case affect UC court battles?
UC faces its own federal civil rights suits over allegations of campus antisemitism tied to pro-Palestinian protests, though the university has not moved to dismiss the cases.
Stearns’ ruling does not directly affect federal courts in California, but it could shape arguments if UC asks a judge to throw out the claims against it.
The closest parallel to the Harvard case is a lawsuit the Justice Department filed in May against UC in federal court in Los Angeles.
That suit alleges UCLA tolerated a hostile environment for Jewish and Israeli students during 2024 pro-Palestinian protests, citing the same civil rights law the government cited in the Harvard case.
The Boston judge found that Harvard’s case relied mainly on incidents from 2023 and 2024. The UCLA lawsuit points to incidents the Trump administration says happened after it formally notified the university of alleged civil rights violations in July 2025, including events between October 2025 and January 2026.
UC also faces a separate lawsuit the department filed in February, which accuses the university of a pattern of discriminating against Jewish and Israeli employees. That case relies on a different civil rights law — one covering workplace discrimination — than the student-centered Harvard and UCLA cases. Due to that difference, Thursday’s ruling would not directly affect the employment discrimination case.
The legal fights involving UC follow a dispute over a $1.2-billion settlement the Trump administration demanded from UCLA last August. A proposal tied to that settlement sought sweeping ideological and cultural changes on campus. A federal judge blocked much of the proposal in November.
Binkley writes for the Associated Press. Kaleem is Times staff writer.
A federal judge in Boston on Thursday dismissed a Trump administration lawsuit that accused Harvard University of turning a blind eye to harassment of Jewish students.
The decision from U.S. District Judge Richard G. Stearns said President Trump’s administration failed to prove an ongoing violation of federal civil rights laws. The judge said the lawsuit, filed in March, mostly focuses on incidents that took place in the 2023-24 academic year, with a few from March 2025.
The cases were “too isolated and episodic” to prove a persistent civil rights violation at the Ivy League campus in Cambridge, Mass., the judge said.
Harvard and the Department of Justice did not immediately provide comment on the decision.
The lawsuit accused Harvard of failing to protect Jewish students during pro-Palestinian demonstrations that roiled the campus after Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel. The Trump administration argued Harvard officials did nothing as Jewish students were “harassed, physically assaulted, stalked, and spat upon.”
In a statement after the lawsuit was filed, Harvard said it “cares deeply about members of our Jewish and Israeli community and remains committed to ensuring they are embraced, respected, and can thrive on our campus.”
Harvard President Alan M. Garber says the university formed a task force to combat antisemitism. The university also hired a new provost and new deans and reformed its discipline policies to make them “more consistent, fair and effective,” Garber has said.
The government’s case sought to recover billions of dollars in federal research grants awarded to Harvard since October 2023. Trump officials argued they had a right to recoup the money under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law barring discrimination based on race or national origin.
The case shares similarities with one the government filed in May against the University of California, although that litigation is in earlier phases than the Harvard case and is assigned to a different judge in a Los Angeles-based federal district court.
The Harvard lawsuit is among several actions the government has taken against the university since the Ivy League school refused a list of demands made by the White House after Trump, a Republican, returned to office last year. Trump officials have separately sought to cut Harvard’s research funding and limit its ability to enroll foreign students and U.S. military members.
In a separate legal case last year, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to reverse more than $2.6 billion in federal funding cuts to Harvard. That decision found that the White House put unconstitutional conditions on federal funding, using antisemitism as a “smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault” on universities.
Despite their bitter dispute, Harvard and the Trump administration have held some negotiations, and Trump himself said the two sides had been close to reaching an agreement. But when the Justice Department filed this civil rights lawsuit in March, it pointed to an extraordinary impasse. When colleges are found in violation of federal civil rights law, they almost always reach compliance through voluntary agreements.
Could the case affect UC court battles?
UC faces its own federal civil rights suits over allegations of campus antisemitism tied to pro-Palestinian protests, though the university has not moved to dismiss the cases.
Stearns’ ruling does not directly affect federal courts in California, but it could shape arguments if UC asks a judge to throw out the claims against it.
The closest parallel to the Harvard case is a lawsuit the Justice Department filed in May against UC in federal court in Los Angeles.
That suit alleges UCLA tolerated a hostile environment for Jewish and Israeli students during 2024 pro-Palestinian protests, citing the same civil rights law the government cited in the Harvard case.
The Boston judge found that Harvard’s case relied mainly on incidents from 2023 and 2024. The UCLA lawsuit points to incidents the Trump administration says happened after it formally notified the university of alleged civil rights violations in July 2025, including events between October 2025 and January 2026.
UC also faces a separate lawsuit the department filed in February, which accuses the university of a pattern of discriminating against Jewish and Israeli employees. That case relies on a different civil rights law — one covering workplace discrimination — than the student-centered Harvard and UCLA cases. Due to that difference, Thursday’s ruling would not directly affect the employment discrimination case.
The legal fights involving UC follow a dispute over a $1.2-billion settlement the Trump administration demanded from UCLA last August. A proposal tied to that settlement sought sweeping ideological and cultural changes on campus. A federal judge blocked much of the proposal in November.
Binkley writes for the Associated Press. Kaleem is Times staff writer.
A federal judge in Boston on Thursday dismissed a Trump administration lawsuit that accused Harvard University of turning a blind eye to harassment of Jewish students.
The decision from U.S. District Judge Richard G. Stearns said President Trump’s administration failed to prove an ongoing violation of federal civil rights laws. The judge said the lawsuit, filed in March, mostly focuses on incidents that took place in the 2023-24 academic year, with a few from March 2025.
The cases were “too isolated and episodic” to prove a persistent civil rights violation at the Ivy League campus in Cambridge, Mass., the judge said.
Harvard and the Department of Justice did not immediately provide comment on the decision.
The lawsuit accused Harvard of failing to protect Jewish students during pro-Palestinian demonstrations that roiled the campus after Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel. The Trump administration argued Harvard officials did nothing as Jewish students were “harassed, physically assaulted, stalked, and spat upon.”
In a statement after the lawsuit was filed, Harvard said it “cares deeply about members of our Jewish and Israeli community and remains committed to ensuring they are embraced, respected, and can thrive on our campus.”
Harvard President Alan M. Garber says the university formed a task force to combat antisemitism. The university also hired a new provost and new deans and reformed its discipline policies to make them “more consistent, fair and effective,” Garber has said.
The government’s case sought to recover billions of dollars in federal research grants awarded to Harvard since October 2023. Trump officials argued they had a right to recoup the money under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law barring discrimination based on race or national origin.
The case shares similarities with one the government filed in May against the University of California, although that litigation is in earlier phases than the Harvard case and is assigned to a different judge in a Los Angeles-based federal district court.
The Harvard lawsuit is among several actions the government has taken against the university since the Ivy League school refused a list of demands made by the White House after Trump, a Republican, returned to office last year. Trump officials have separately sought to cut Harvard’s research funding and limit its ability to enroll foreign students and U.S. military members.
In a separate legal case last year, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to reverse more than $2.6 billion in federal funding cuts to Harvard. That decision found that the White House put unconstitutional conditions on federal funding, using antisemitism as a “smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault” on universities.
Despite their bitter dispute, Harvard and the Trump administration have held some negotiations, and Trump himself said the two sides had been close to reaching an agreement. But when the Justice Department filed this civil rights lawsuit in March, it pointed to an extraordinary impasse. When colleges are found in violation of federal civil rights law, they almost always reach compliance through voluntary agreements.
Could the case affect UC court battles?
UC faces its own federal civil rights suits over allegations of campus antisemitism tied to pro-Palestinian protests, though the university has not moved to dismiss the cases.
Stearns’ ruling does not directly affect federal courts in California, but it could shape arguments if UC asks a judge to throw out the claims against it.
The closest parallel to the Harvard case is a lawsuit the Justice Department filed in May against UC in federal court in Los Angeles.
That suit alleges UCLA tolerated a hostile environment for Jewish and Israeli students during 2024 pro-Palestinian protests, citing the same civil rights law the government cited in the Harvard case.
The Boston judge found that Harvard’s case relied mainly on incidents from 2023 and 2024. The UCLA lawsuit points to incidents the Trump administration says happened after it formally notified the university of alleged civil rights violations in July 2025, including events between October 2025 and January 2026.
UC also faces a separate lawsuit the department filed in February, which accuses the university of a pattern of discriminating against Jewish and Israeli employees. That case relies on a different civil rights law — one covering workplace discrimination — than the student-centered Harvard and UCLA cases. Due to that difference, Thursday’s ruling would not directly affect the employment discrimination case.
The legal fights involving UC follow a dispute over a $1.2-billion settlement the Trump administration demanded from UCLA last August. A proposal tied to that settlement sought sweeping ideological and cultural changes on campus. A federal judge blocked much of the proposal in November.
Binkley writes for the Associated Press. Kaleem is Times staff writer.
A federal judge in Boston on Thursday dismissed a Trump administration lawsuit that accused Harvard University of turning a blind eye to harassment of Jewish students.
The decision from U.S. District Judge Richard G. Stearns said President Trump’s administration failed to prove an ongoing violation of federal civil rights laws. The judge said the lawsuit, filed in March, mostly focuses on incidents that took place in the 2023-24 academic year, with a few from March 2025.
The cases were “too isolated and episodic” to prove a persistent civil rights violation at the Ivy League campus in Cambridge, Mass., the judge said.
Harvard and the Department of Justice did not immediately provide comment on the decision.
The lawsuit accused Harvard of failing to protect Jewish students during pro-Palestinian demonstrations that roiled the campus after Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel. The Trump administration argued Harvard officials did nothing as Jewish students were “harassed, physically assaulted, stalked, and spat upon.”
In a statement after the lawsuit was filed, Harvard said it “cares deeply about members of our Jewish and Israeli community and remains committed to ensuring they are embraced, respected, and can thrive on our campus.”
Harvard President Alan M. Garber says the university formed a task force to combat antisemitism. The university also hired a new provost and new deans and reformed its discipline policies to make them “more consistent, fair and effective,” Garber has said.
The government’s case sought to recover billions of dollars in federal research grants awarded to Harvard since October 2023. Trump officials argued they had a right to recoup the money under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law barring discrimination based on race or national origin.
The case shares similarities with one the government filed in May against the University of California, although that litigation is in earlier phases than the Harvard case and is assigned to a different judge in a Los Angeles-based federal district court.
The Harvard lawsuit is among several actions the government has taken against the university since the Ivy League school refused a list of demands made by the White House after Trump, a Republican, returned to office last year. Trump officials have separately sought to cut Harvard’s research funding and limit its ability to enroll foreign students and U.S. military members.
In a separate legal case last year, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to reverse more than $2.6 billion in federal funding cuts to Harvard. That decision found that the White House put unconstitutional conditions on federal funding, using antisemitism as a “smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault” on universities.
Despite their bitter dispute, Harvard and the Trump administration have held some negotiations, and Trump himself said the two sides had been close to reaching an agreement. But when the Justice Department filed this civil rights lawsuit in March, it pointed to an extraordinary impasse. When colleges are found in violation of federal civil rights law, they almost always reach compliance through voluntary agreements.
Could the case affect UC court battles?
UC faces its own federal civil rights suits over allegations of campus antisemitism tied to pro-Palestinian protests, though the university has not moved to dismiss the cases.
Stearns’ ruling does not directly affect federal courts in California, but it could shape arguments if UC asks a judge to throw out the claims against it.
The closest parallel to the Harvard case is a lawsuit the Justice Department filed in May against UC in federal court in Los Angeles.
That suit alleges UCLA tolerated a hostile environment for Jewish and Israeli students during 2024 pro-Palestinian protests, citing the same civil rights law the government cited in the Harvard case.
The Boston judge found that Harvard’s case relied mainly on incidents from 2023 and 2024. The UCLA lawsuit points to incidents the Trump administration says happened after it formally notified the university of alleged civil rights violations in July 2025, including events between October 2025 and January 2026.
UC also faces a separate lawsuit the department filed in February, which accuses the university of a pattern of discriminating against Jewish and Israeli employees. That case relies on a different civil rights law — one covering workplace discrimination — than the student-centered Harvard and UCLA cases. Due to that difference, Thursday’s ruling would not directly affect the employment discrimination case.
The legal fights involving UC follow a dispute over a $1.2-billion settlement the Trump administration demanded from UCLA last August. A proposal tied to that settlement sought sweeping ideological and cultural changes on campus. A federal judge blocked much of the proposal in November.
Binkley writes for the Associated Press. Kaleem is Times staff writer.
A federal judge in Boston on Thursday dismissed a Trump administration lawsuit that accused Harvard University of turning a blind eye to harassment of Jewish students.
The decision from U.S. District Judge Richard G. Stearns said President Trump’s administration failed to prove an ongoing violation of federal civil rights laws. The judge said the lawsuit, filed in March, mostly focuses on incidents that took place in the 2023-24 academic year, with a few from March 2025.
The cases were “too isolated and episodic” to prove a persistent civil rights violation at the Ivy League campus in Cambridge, Mass., the judge said.
Harvard and the Department of Justice did not immediately provide comment on the decision.
The lawsuit accused Harvard of failing to protect Jewish students during pro-Palestinian demonstrations that roiled the campus after Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel. The Trump administration argued Harvard officials did nothing as Jewish students were “harassed, physically assaulted, stalked, and spat upon.”
In a statement after the lawsuit was filed, Harvard said it “cares deeply about members of our Jewish and Israeli community and remains committed to ensuring they are embraced, respected, and can thrive on our campus.”
Harvard President Alan M. Garber says the university formed a task force to combat antisemitism. The university also hired a new provost and new deans and reformed its discipline policies to make them “more consistent, fair and effective,” Garber has said.
The government’s case sought to recover billions of dollars in federal research grants awarded to Harvard since October 2023. Trump officials argued they had a right to recoup the money under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law barring discrimination based on race or national origin.
The case shares similarities with one the government filed in May against the University of California, although that litigation is in earlier phases than the Harvard case and is assigned to a different judge in a Los Angeles-based federal district court.
The Harvard lawsuit is among several actions the government has taken against the university since the Ivy League school refused a list of demands made by the White House after Trump, a Republican, returned to office last year. Trump officials have separately sought to cut Harvard’s research funding and limit its ability to enroll foreign students and U.S. military members.
In a separate legal case last year, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to reverse more than $2.6 billion in federal funding cuts to Harvard. That decision found that the White House put unconstitutional conditions on federal funding, using antisemitism as a “smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault” on universities.
Despite their bitter dispute, Harvard and the Trump administration have held some negotiations, and Trump himself said the two sides had been close to reaching an agreement. But when the Justice Department filed this civil rights lawsuit in March, it pointed to an extraordinary impasse. When colleges are found in violation of federal civil rights law, they almost always reach compliance through voluntary agreements.
Could the case affect UC court battles?
UC faces its own federal civil rights suits over allegations of campus antisemitism tied to pro-Palestinian protests, though the university has not moved to dismiss the cases.
Stearns’ ruling does not directly affect federal courts in California, but it could shape arguments if UC asks a judge to throw out the claims against it.
The closest parallel to the Harvard case is a lawsuit the Justice Department filed in May against UC in federal court in Los Angeles.
That suit alleges UCLA tolerated a hostile environment for Jewish and Israeli students during 2024 pro-Palestinian protests, citing the same civil rights law the government cited in the Harvard case.
The Boston judge found that Harvard’s case relied mainly on incidents from 2023 and 2024. The UCLA lawsuit points to incidents the Trump administration says happened after it formally notified the university of alleged civil rights violations in July 2025, including events between October 2025 and January 2026.
UC also faces a separate lawsuit the department filed in February, which accuses the university of a pattern of discriminating against Jewish and Israeli employees. That case relies on a different civil rights law — one covering workplace discrimination — than the student-centered Harvard and UCLA cases. Due to that difference, Thursday’s ruling would not directly affect the employment discrimination case.
The legal fights involving UC follow a dispute over a $1.2-billion settlement the Trump administration demanded from UCLA last August. A proposal tied to that settlement sought sweeping ideological and cultural changes on campus. A federal judge blocked much of the proposal in November.
Binkley writes for the Associated Press. Kaleem is Times staff writer.
A federal judge in Boston on Thursday dismissed a Trump administration lawsuit that accused Harvard University of turning a blind eye to harassment of Jewish students.
The decision from U.S. District Judge Richard G. Stearns said President Trump’s administration failed to prove an ongoing violation of federal civil rights laws. The judge said the lawsuit, filed in March, mostly focuses on incidents that took place in the 2023-24 academic year, with a few from March 2025.
The cases were “too isolated and episodic” to prove a persistent civil rights violation at the Ivy League campus in Cambridge, Mass., the judge said.
Harvard and the Department of Justice did not immediately provide comment on the decision.
The lawsuit accused Harvard of failing to protect Jewish students during pro-Palestinian demonstrations that roiled the campus after Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel. The Trump administration argued Harvard officials did nothing as Jewish students were “harassed, physically assaulted, stalked, and spat upon.”
In a statement after the lawsuit was filed, Harvard said it “cares deeply about members of our Jewish and Israeli community and remains committed to ensuring they are embraced, respected, and can thrive on our campus.”
Harvard President Alan M. Garber says the university formed a task force to combat antisemitism. The university also hired a new provost and new deans and reformed its discipline policies to make them “more consistent, fair and effective,” Garber has said.
The government’s case sought to recover billions of dollars in federal research grants awarded to Harvard since October 2023. Trump officials argued they had a right to recoup the money under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law barring discrimination based on race or national origin.
The case shares similarities with one the government filed in May against the University of California, although that litigation is in earlier phases than the Harvard case and is assigned to a different judge in a Los Angeles-based federal district court.
The Harvard lawsuit is among several actions the government has taken against the university since the Ivy League school refused a list of demands made by the White House after Trump, a Republican, returned to office last year. Trump officials have separately sought to cut Harvard’s research funding and limit its ability to enroll foreign students and U.S. military members.
In a separate legal case last year, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to reverse more than $2.6 billion in federal funding cuts to Harvard. That decision found that the White House put unconstitutional conditions on federal funding, using antisemitism as a “smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault” on universities.
Despite their bitter dispute, Harvard and the Trump administration have held some negotiations, and Trump himself said the two sides had been close to reaching an agreement. But when the Justice Department filed this civil rights lawsuit in March, it pointed to an extraordinary impasse. When colleges are found in violation of federal civil rights law, they almost always reach compliance through voluntary agreements.
Could the case affect UC court battles?
UC faces its own federal civil rights suits over allegations of campus antisemitism tied to pro-Palestinian protests, though the university has not moved to dismiss the cases.
Stearns’ ruling does not directly affect federal courts in California, but it could shape arguments if UC asks a judge to throw out the claims against it.
The closest parallel to the Harvard case is a lawsuit the Justice Department filed in May against UC in federal court in Los Angeles.
That suit alleges UCLA tolerated a hostile environment for Jewish and Israeli students during 2024 pro-Palestinian protests, citing the same civil rights law the government cited in the Harvard case.
The Boston judge found that Harvard’s case relied mainly on incidents from 2023 and 2024. The UCLA lawsuit points to incidents the Trump administration says happened after it formally notified the university of alleged civil rights violations in July 2025, including events between October 2025 and January 2026.
UC also faces a separate lawsuit the department filed in February, which accuses the university of a pattern of discriminating against Jewish and Israeli employees. That case relies on a different civil rights law — one covering workplace discrimination — than the student-centered Harvard and UCLA cases. Due to that difference, Thursday’s ruling would not directly affect the employment discrimination case.
The legal fights involving UC follow a dispute over a $1.2-billion settlement the Trump administration demanded from UCLA last August. A proposal tied to that settlement sought sweeping ideological and cultural changes on campus. A federal judge blocked much of the proposal in November.
Binkley writes for the Associated Press. Kaleem is Times staff writer.
A federal judge in Boston on Thursday dismissed a Trump administration lawsuit that accused Harvard University of turning a blind eye to harassment of Jewish students.
The decision from U.S. District Judge Richard G. Stearns said President Trump’s administration failed to prove an ongoing violation of federal civil rights laws. The judge said the lawsuit, filed in March, mostly focuses on incidents that took place in the 2023-24 academic year, with a few from March 2025.
The cases were “too isolated and episodic” to prove a persistent civil rights violation at the Ivy League campus in Cambridge, Mass., the judge said.
Harvard and the Department of Justice did not immediately provide comment on the decision.
The lawsuit accused Harvard of failing to protect Jewish students during pro-Palestinian demonstrations that roiled the campus after Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel. The Trump administration argued Harvard officials did nothing as Jewish students were “harassed, physically assaulted, stalked, and spat upon.”
In a statement after the lawsuit was filed, Harvard said it “cares deeply about members of our Jewish and Israeli community and remains committed to ensuring they are embraced, respected, and can thrive on our campus.”
Harvard President Alan M. Garber says the university formed a task force to combat antisemitism. The university also hired a new provost and new deans and reformed its discipline policies to make them “more consistent, fair and effective,” Garber has said.
The government’s case sought to recover billions of dollars in federal research grants awarded to Harvard since October 2023. Trump officials argued they had a right to recoup the money under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law barring discrimination based on race or national origin.
The case shares similarities with one the government filed in May against the University of California, although that litigation is in earlier phases than the Harvard case and is assigned to a different judge in a Los Angeles-based federal district court.
The Harvard lawsuit is among several actions the government has taken against the university since the Ivy League school refused a list of demands made by the White House after Trump, a Republican, returned to office last year. Trump officials have separately sought to cut Harvard’s research funding and limit its ability to enroll foreign students and U.S. military members.
In a separate legal case last year, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to reverse more than $2.6 billion in federal funding cuts to Harvard. That decision found that the White House put unconstitutional conditions on federal funding, using antisemitism as a “smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault” on universities.
Despite their bitter dispute, Harvard and the Trump administration have held some negotiations, and Trump himself said the two sides had been close to reaching an agreement. But when the Justice Department filed this civil rights lawsuit in March, it pointed to an extraordinary impasse. When colleges are found in violation of federal civil rights law, they almost always reach compliance through voluntary agreements.
Could the case affect UC court battles?
UC faces its own federal civil rights suits over allegations of campus antisemitism tied to pro-Palestinian protests, though the university has not moved to dismiss the cases.
Stearns’ ruling does not directly affect federal courts in California, but it could shape arguments if UC asks a judge to throw out the claims against it.
The closest parallel to the Harvard case is a lawsuit the Justice Department filed in May against UC in federal court in Los Angeles.
That suit alleges UCLA tolerated a hostile environment for Jewish and Israeli students during 2024 pro-Palestinian protests, citing the same civil rights law the government cited in the Harvard case.
The Boston judge found that Harvard’s case relied mainly on incidents from 2023 and 2024. The UCLA lawsuit points to incidents the Trump administration says happened after it formally notified the university of alleged civil rights violations in July 2025, including events between October 2025 and January 2026.
UC also faces a separate lawsuit the department filed in February, which accuses the university of a pattern of discriminating against Jewish and Israeli employees. That case relies on a different civil rights law — one covering workplace discrimination — than the student-centered Harvard and UCLA cases. Due to that difference, Thursday’s ruling would not directly affect the employment discrimination case.
The legal fights involving UC follow a dispute over a $1.2-billion settlement the Trump administration demanded from UCLA last August. A proposal tied to that settlement sought sweeping ideological and cultural changes on campus. A federal judge blocked much of the proposal in November.
Binkley writes for the Associated Press. Kaleem is Times staff writer.
A federal judge in Boston on Thursday dismissed a Trump administration lawsuit that accused Harvard University of turning a blind eye to harassment of Jewish students.
The decision from U.S. District Judge Richard G. Stearns said President Trump’s administration failed to prove an ongoing violation of federal civil rights laws. The judge said the lawsuit, filed in March, mostly focuses on incidents that took place in the 2023-24 academic year, with a few from March 2025.
The cases were “too isolated and episodic” to prove a persistent civil rights violation at the Ivy League campus in Cambridge, Mass., the judge said.
Harvard and the Department of Justice did not immediately provide comment on the decision.
The lawsuit accused Harvard of failing to protect Jewish students during pro-Palestinian demonstrations that roiled the campus after Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel. The Trump administration argued Harvard officials did nothing as Jewish students were “harassed, physically assaulted, stalked, and spat upon.”
In a statement after the lawsuit was filed, Harvard said it “cares deeply about members of our Jewish and Israeli community and remains committed to ensuring they are embraced, respected, and can thrive on our campus.”
Harvard President Alan M. Garber says the university formed a task force to combat antisemitism. The university also hired a new provost and new deans and reformed its discipline policies to make them “more consistent, fair and effective,” Garber has said.
The government’s case sought to recover billions of dollars in federal research grants awarded to Harvard since October 2023. Trump officials argued they had a right to recoup the money under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law barring discrimination based on race or national origin.
The case shares similarities with one the government filed in May against the University of California, although that litigation is in earlier phases than the Harvard case and is assigned to a different judge in a Los Angeles-based federal district court.
The Harvard lawsuit is among several actions the government has taken against the university since the Ivy League school refused a list of demands made by the White House after Trump, a Republican, returned to office last year. Trump officials have separately sought to cut Harvard’s research funding and limit its ability to enroll foreign students and U.S. military members.
In a separate legal case last year, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to reverse more than $2.6 billion in federal funding cuts to Harvard. That decision found that the White House put unconstitutional conditions on federal funding, using antisemitism as a “smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault” on universities.
Despite their bitter dispute, Harvard and the Trump administration have held some negotiations, and Trump himself said the two sides had been close to reaching an agreement. But when the Justice Department filed this civil rights lawsuit in March, it pointed to an extraordinary impasse. When colleges are found in violation of federal civil rights law, they almost always reach compliance through voluntary agreements.
Could the case affect UC court battles?
UC faces its own federal civil rights suits over allegations of campus antisemitism tied to pro-Palestinian protests, though the university has not moved to dismiss the cases.
Stearns’ ruling does not directly affect federal courts in California, but it could shape arguments if UC asks a judge to throw out the claims against it.
The closest parallel to the Harvard case is a lawsuit the Justice Department filed in May against UC in federal court in Los Angeles.
That suit alleges UCLA tolerated a hostile environment for Jewish and Israeli students during 2024 pro-Palestinian protests, citing the same civil rights law the government cited in the Harvard case.
The Boston judge found that Harvard’s case relied mainly on incidents from 2023 and 2024. The UCLA lawsuit points to incidents the Trump administration says happened after it formally notified the university of alleged civil rights violations in July 2025, including events between October 2025 and January 2026.
UC also faces a separate lawsuit the department filed in February, which accuses the university of a pattern of discriminating against Jewish and Israeli employees. That case relies on a different civil rights law — one covering workplace discrimination — than the student-centered Harvard and UCLA cases. Due to that difference, Thursday’s ruling would not directly affect the employment discrimination case.
The legal fights involving UC follow a dispute over a $1.2-billion settlement the Trump administration demanded from UCLA last August. A proposal tied to that settlement sought sweeping ideological and cultural changes on campus. A federal judge blocked much of the proposal in November.
Binkley writes for the Associated Press. Kaleem is Times staff writer.
A federal judge in Boston on Thursday dismissed a Trump administration lawsuit that accused Harvard University of turning a blind eye to harassment of Jewish students.
The decision from U.S. District Judge Richard G. Stearns said President Trump’s administration failed to prove an ongoing violation of federal civil rights laws. The judge said the lawsuit, filed in March, mostly focuses on incidents that took place in the 2023-24 academic year, with a few from March 2025.
The cases were “too isolated and episodic” to prove a persistent civil rights violation at the Ivy League campus in Cambridge, Mass., the judge said.
Harvard and the Department of Justice did not immediately provide comment on the decision.
The lawsuit accused Harvard of failing to protect Jewish students during pro-Palestinian demonstrations that roiled the campus after Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel. The Trump administration argued Harvard officials did nothing as Jewish students were “harassed, physically assaulted, stalked, and spat upon.”
In a statement after the lawsuit was filed, Harvard said it “cares deeply about members of our Jewish and Israeli community and remains committed to ensuring they are embraced, respected, and can thrive on our campus.”
Harvard President Alan M. Garber says the university formed a task force to combat antisemitism. The university also hired a new provost and new deans and reformed its discipline policies to make them “more consistent, fair and effective,” Garber has said.
The government’s case sought to recover billions of dollars in federal research grants awarded to Harvard since October 2023. Trump officials argued they had a right to recoup the money under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law barring discrimination based on race or national origin.
The case shares similarities with one the government filed in May against the University of California, although that litigation is in earlier phases than the Harvard case and is assigned to a different judge in a Los Angeles-based federal district court.
The Harvard lawsuit is among several actions the government has taken against the university since the Ivy League school refused a list of demands made by the White House after Trump, a Republican, returned to office last year. Trump officials have separately sought to cut Harvard’s research funding and limit its ability to enroll foreign students and U.S. military members.
In a separate legal case last year, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to reverse more than $2.6 billion in federal funding cuts to Harvard. That decision found that the White House put unconstitutional conditions on federal funding, using antisemitism as a “smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault” on universities.
Despite their bitter dispute, Harvard and the Trump administration have held some negotiations, and Trump himself said the two sides had been close to reaching an agreement. But when the Justice Department filed this civil rights lawsuit in March, it pointed to an extraordinary impasse. When colleges are found in violation of federal civil rights law, they almost always reach compliance through voluntary agreements.
Could the case affect UC court battles?
UC faces its own federal civil rights suits over allegations of campus antisemitism tied to pro-Palestinian protests, though the university has not moved to dismiss the cases.
Stearns’ ruling does not directly affect federal courts in California, but it could shape arguments if UC asks a judge to throw out the claims against it.
The closest parallel to the Harvard case is a lawsuit the Justice Department filed in May against UC in federal court in Los Angeles.
That suit alleges UCLA tolerated a hostile environment for Jewish and Israeli students during 2024 pro-Palestinian protests, citing the same civil rights law the government cited in the Harvard case.
The Boston judge found that Harvard’s case relied mainly on incidents from 2023 and 2024. The UCLA lawsuit points to incidents the Trump administration says happened after it formally notified the university of alleged civil rights violations in July 2025, including events between October 2025 and January 2026.
UC also faces a separate lawsuit the department filed in February, which accuses the university of a pattern of discriminating against Jewish and Israeli employees. That case relies on a different civil rights law — one covering workplace discrimination — than the student-centered Harvard and UCLA cases. Due to that difference, Thursday’s ruling would not directly affect the employment discrimination case.
The legal fights involving UC follow a dispute over a $1.2-billion settlement the Trump administration demanded from UCLA last August. A proposal tied to that settlement sought sweeping ideological and cultural changes on campus. A federal judge blocked much of the proposal in November.
Binkley writes for the Associated Press. Kaleem is Times staff writer.
A federal judge in Boston on Thursday dismissed a Trump administration lawsuit that accused Harvard University of turning a blind eye to harassment of Jewish students.
The decision from U.S. District Judge Richard G. Stearns said President Trump’s administration failed to prove an ongoing violation of federal civil rights laws. The judge said the lawsuit, filed in March, mostly focuses on incidents that took place in the 2023-24 academic year, with a few from March 2025.
The cases were “too isolated and episodic” to prove a persistent civil rights violation at the Ivy League campus in Cambridge, Mass., the judge said.
Harvard and the Department of Justice did not immediately provide comment on the decision.
The lawsuit accused Harvard of failing to protect Jewish students during pro-Palestinian demonstrations that roiled the campus after Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel. The Trump administration argued Harvard officials did nothing as Jewish students were “harassed, physically assaulted, stalked, and spat upon.”
In a statement after the lawsuit was filed, Harvard said it “cares deeply about members of our Jewish and Israeli community and remains committed to ensuring they are embraced, respected, and can thrive on our campus.”
Harvard President Alan M. Garber says the university formed a task force to combat antisemitism. The university also hired a new provost and new deans and reformed its discipline policies to make them “more consistent, fair and effective,” Garber has said.
The government’s case sought to recover billions of dollars in federal research grants awarded to Harvard since October 2023. Trump officials argued they had a right to recoup the money under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law barring discrimination based on race or national origin.
The case shares similarities with one the government filed in May against the University of California, although that litigation is in earlier phases than the Harvard case and is assigned to a different judge in a Los Angeles-based federal district court.
The Harvard lawsuit is among several actions the government has taken against the university since the Ivy League school refused a list of demands made by the White House after Trump, a Republican, returned to office last year. Trump officials have separately sought to cut Harvard’s research funding and limit its ability to enroll foreign students and U.S. military members.
In a separate legal case last year, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to reverse more than $2.6 billion in federal funding cuts to Harvard. That decision found that the White House put unconstitutional conditions on federal funding, using antisemitism as a “smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault” on universities.
Despite their bitter dispute, Harvard and the Trump administration have held some negotiations, and Trump himself said the two sides had been close to reaching an agreement. But when the Justice Department filed this civil rights lawsuit in March, it pointed to an extraordinary impasse. When colleges are found in violation of federal civil rights law, they almost always reach compliance through voluntary agreements.
Could the case affect UC court battles?
UC faces its own federal civil rights suits over allegations of campus antisemitism tied to pro-Palestinian protests, though the university has not moved to dismiss the cases.
Stearns’ ruling does not directly affect federal courts in California, but it could shape arguments if UC asks a judge to throw out the claims against it.
The closest parallel to the Harvard case is a lawsuit the Justice Department filed in May against UC in federal court in Los Angeles.
That suit alleges UCLA tolerated a hostile environment for Jewish and Israeli students during 2024 pro-Palestinian protests, citing the same civil rights law the government cited in the Harvard case.
The Boston judge found that Harvard’s case relied mainly on incidents from 2023 and 2024. The UCLA lawsuit points to incidents the Trump administration says happened after it formally notified the university of alleged civil rights violations in July 2025, including events between October 2025 and January 2026.
UC also faces a separate lawsuit the department filed in February, which accuses the university of a pattern of discriminating against Jewish and Israeli employees. That case relies on a different civil rights law — one covering workplace discrimination — than the student-centered Harvard and UCLA cases. Due to that difference, Thursday’s ruling would not directly affect the employment discrimination case.
The legal fights involving UC follow a dispute over a $1.2-billion settlement the Trump administration demanded from UCLA last August. A proposal tied to that settlement sought sweeping ideological and cultural changes on campus. A federal judge blocked much of the proposal in November.
Binkley writes for the Associated Press. Kaleem is Times staff writer.
A federal judge in Boston on Thursday dismissed a Trump administration lawsuit that accused Harvard University of turning a blind eye to harassment of Jewish students.
The decision from U.S. District Judge Richard G. Stearns said President Trump’s administration failed to prove an ongoing violation of federal civil rights laws. The judge said the lawsuit, filed in March, mostly focuses on incidents that took place in the 2023-24 academic year, with a few from March 2025.
The cases were “too isolated and episodic” to prove a persistent civil rights violation at the Ivy League campus in Cambridge, Mass., the judge said.
Harvard and the Department of Justice did not immediately provide comment on the decision.
The lawsuit accused Harvard of failing to protect Jewish students during pro-Palestinian demonstrations that roiled the campus after Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel. The Trump administration argued Harvard officials did nothing as Jewish students were “harassed, physically assaulted, stalked, and spat upon.”
In a statement after the lawsuit was filed, Harvard said it “cares deeply about members of our Jewish and Israeli community and remains committed to ensuring they are embraced, respected, and can thrive on our campus.”
Harvard President Alan M. Garber says the university formed a task force to combat antisemitism. The university also hired a new provost and new deans and reformed its discipline policies to make them “more consistent, fair and effective,” Garber has said.
The government’s case sought to recover billions of dollars in federal research grants awarded to Harvard since October 2023. Trump officials argued they had a right to recoup the money under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law barring discrimination based on race or national origin.
The case shares similarities with one the government filed in May against the University of California, although that litigation is in earlier phases than the Harvard case and is assigned to a different judge in a Los Angeles-based federal district court.
The Harvard lawsuit is among several actions the government has taken against the university since the Ivy League school refused a list of demands made by the White House after Trump, a Republican, returned to office last year. Trump officials have separately sought to cut Harvard’s research funding and limit its ability to enroll foreign students and U.S. military members.
In a separate legal case last year, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to reverse more than $2.6 billion in federal funding cuts to Harvard. That decision found that the White House put unconstitutional conditions on federal funding, using antisemitism as a “smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault” on universities.
Despite their bitter dispute, Harvard and the Trump administration have held some negotiations, and Trump himself said the two sides had been close to reaching an agreement. But when the Justice Department filed this civil rights lawsuit in March, it pointed to an extraordinary impasse. When colleges are found in violation of federal civil rights law, they almost always reach compliance through voluntary agreements.
Could the case affect UC court battles?
UC faces its own federal civil rights suits over allegations of campus antisemitism tied to pro-Palestinian protests, though the university has not moved to dismiss the cases.
Stearns’ ruling does not directly affect federal courts in California, but it could shape arguments if UC asks a judge to throw out the claims against it.
The closest parallel to the Harvard case is a lawsuit the Justice Department filed in May against UC in federal court in Los Angeles.
That suit alleges UCLA tolerated a hostile environment for Jewish and Israeli students during 2024 pro-Palestinian protests, citing the same civil rights law the government cited in the Harvard case.
The Boston judge found that Harvard’s case relied mainly on incidents from 2023 and 2024. The UCLA lawsuit points to incidents the Trump administration says happened after it formally notified the university of alleged civil rights violations in July 2025, including events between October 2025 and January 2026.
UC also faces a separate lawsuit the department filed in February, which accuses the university of a pattern of discriminating against Jewish and Israeli employees. That case relies on a different civil rights law — one covering workplace discrimination — than the student-centered Harvard and UCLA cases. Due to that difference, Thursday’s ruling would not directly affect the employment discrimination case.
The legal fights involving UC follow a dispute over a $1.2-billion settlement the Trump administration demanded from UCLA last August. A proposal tied to that settlement sought sweeping ideological and cultural changes on campus. A federal judge blocked much of the proposal in November.
Binkley writes for the Associated Press. Kaleem is Times staff writer.
