Law enacted in 1946 could potentially hold significance in Harvard's legal battle against the Trump administration.
In the heat of the Trump administration's pissing match with Harvard, the Ivy League titan whipped out the big legal kahuna: the First Amendment. That's right, the free speech motherfucker that we all know and love. But guess what? The real fireworks don't come from the First Amendment's sweet, sweet guarantee of free speech. Instead, Harvard's lawsuit dives deep into the obscure and convoluted world of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
In short, the APA is this old piece of legislation that the government stumbled upon after World War II. Congress passed it to prevent the executive branch from making decisions based on irrational bullshit. Simply put, the APA ensures the government follows the law and considers facts before taking action, and Harvard is arguing that the administration isn't doing just that.
The freeze on $2.2 billion in funding that fuels much of Harvard's research is the epitome of the government's disregard for proper procedures. Just hours after Harvard refused to bend to the administration's demands, the government froze the funds, setting a breakneck pace for changes spanning immigration and staffing policy, among others.
David A. Super, a professor of administrative and constitutional law at Georgetown and Yale, told CNN, "No administration has done anything like this before precisely because there are procedures in place to restrain this kind of extreme thing."
Whether the government can impose such broad demands on Harvard as a precondition for funding is shaping up to be yet another Trump controversy headed for the Supreme Court. But don't get too comfortable making predictions about what the high court will do; it's usually a fool's errand.
That being said, Harvard's case looks pretty solid in Steve Vladeck's books. Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown Law, believes it's not too controversial to accept that the government can't demand schools only teach certain classes or hire the administrators it wants. He told CNN that Harvard is "dead on" when it comes to the government's attempts to control the university's budgeting and financial planning.
But the APA isn't Harvard's only ace up its sleeve. The civil rights issue is also a central concern in the case. While the Trump administration asserts Harvard has failed to address antisemitism in violation of the Civil Rights Act, Harvard claims it's already tightening its ban on protests that disrupt student activities and expanding inclusion efforts for Jewish students.
It's important to note that the APA doesn't require a hearing for every decision, but it does demand that agencies don't change their procedures without reason. Harvard argues that suspending federal research funding as a way to combat antisemitism doesn't make any sense and upends procedures they've come to expect with no warning.
The Trump administration hasn't responded to Harvard's allegations yet, but press secretary Karoline Leavitt said, "The president has made it quite clear that it's Harvard who has put themselves in the position to lose their own funding by not obeying federal law, and we expect all colleges and universities who are receiving taxpayer funds to abide by federal law."
It seems like snatching away federal grants is the Trump administration's go-to threat when things don't go its way. But as we've seen with Harvard and other institutions, that tactic may not always play out in the government's favor. Especially when you're dealing with the APA, the common-sense cop on the beat that makes sure the executive branch isn't taking the piss out of everyone else.
- Harvard's lawsuit against the Trump administration, regarding the freeze on research funds, alleges that the Administration is not adhering to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by disregarding proper procedures.
- The APA, an old piece of legislation passed after World War II, is designed to prevent the executive branch from making decisions based on irrational grounds and to ensure compliance with the law before action is taken.
- David A. Super, a professor of administrative and constitutional law at both Georgetown and Yale, has stated that no administration has done anything similar to this, due to the existence of procedures in place to restrain such extreme actions.
- In accordance with Steve Vladeck, a professor at Georgewn Law, it is not controversial to accept that the government cannot demand schools to teach specific classes or dictate their administrative hiring, as claimed by Harvard in their lawsuit against the Trump administration.
