The brief emphasizes the fundamental importance of institutional autonomy, rule of law, and constitutionally protected speech rights, arguments the associations have made throughout the litigation.

The case dates to April 2025, when the administration sent Harvard a series of demands related to the university's governance and academic practices. After Harvard declined to comply, the administration froze more than $2.2 billion in research grants, and Harvard sued, arguing the freeze was unlawful retaliation and violated its First Amendment rights.
A federal district court granted Harvard summary judgment last September, with U.S.

District Judge Allison D. Burroughs finding that the administration's actions amounted to retaliation, unconstitutional conditions, and unconstitutional coercion, and ordering the funding freeze lifted. The government appealed that ruling, and briefing before the First Circuit is now underway.

The brief argues that institutional autonomy is a fundamental legal principle grounded in the constitution and long recognized by Congress. It acknowledges that institutions must comply with their legal obligations, including Title VI's prohibition on discrimination, but notes that Congress established specific procedures the executive branch must follow before terminating federal funding.

In Harvard's case, the brief argues, none of those procedures were followed; instead, $2.2 billion in grants were frozen via press release.

This marks the third time the associations have weighed in on the broader legal fight since last year, following a June 2025 brief filed at the district court level and a January 2026 brief filed in a related case over international student enrollment at Harvard. The associations argue that if the federal government can single out one university for this kind of treatment, no institution is protected from the same risk.

A copy of the brief and co-signers is available here.