In June of 2025, the Firm filed an amicus brief in President and Fellows of Harvard College v. United States Dep’t of Health and Human Services, et al. The case concerns the Trump administration’s decision to terminate millions of dollars in federal funding to Harvard and other institutions on the basis of allegations of antisemitism at Harvard. The administration first wrote to Harvard at the end of February raising these allegations and citing Title VI, and even as Harvard was voluntarily taking steps to combat antisemitism, six weeks later, without following the mandatory process for fund termination under Title VI, several agencies terminated millions of dollars of grant funding.
The brief, filed on behalf of former Republican and Democratic officials of United States agencies who were responsible for enforcing Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., explained that the Title VI statute and implementing regulations lay out the exclusive—and mandatory—process for terminating federal funding for discrimination that violates the statute. Since Title VI was passed, every administration, regardless of political party, has faithfully followed this process.
The process includes an investigation sufficient to enable the agency to articulate a specific Title VI violation, efforts at voluntary compliance, and then a hearing before a hearing officer whose determination is subject to judicial review to determine whether the institution is in fact violating Title VI. Even then, before an agency may terminate funds, it must notify Congress and wait for a statutorily mandated 30-day period before terminating. Alternatively, an agency may refer the investigation to DOJ for litigation, which also includes the protection of judicial review. This mandatory process is critical for reducing the risk of harm to innocent third-party beneficiaries of federal programs and for preventing unilateral, retaliatory action by the executive.
Following the law has never been a partisan issue—all prior administrations have complied with this law, and it has been effective in combatting discrimination while minimizing harm to innocent third-party beneficiaries of Congressionally approved funds. The administration’s refusal here to follow the statute and regulations constitutes a dramatic break from tradition and law.
Judge David Tatel (ret.), formerly a judge on the Federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the director of the Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) in the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (“HEW”) from 1977 to 1979, explained in a declaration accompanying the brief that “[n]o matter how egregious the discrimination, the statute bars the government from cutting off federal funds unless there is no genuine chance of a voluntary resolution. . . . The possibility of terminating funds was there, but never the goal. Fund termination was to be used as a matter of last resort, only when all efforts at negotiating a voluntary resolution had been exhausted.”
And Assistant Secretary Catherine E. Lhamon, who served as the Assistant Secretary heading OCR at the Department of Education from 2013 to 2017 and again from 2021 to 2025, explained that her office had used the Title VI investigation and negotiation process many times to achieve voluntary agreements with higher education institutions to combat shared-ancestry discrimination, including antisemitism and anti-Muslim bias.
The Court will hear arguments on the parties’ motions in the case on July 21, 2025.
The Relman Colfax amicus team includes Rebecca Livengood, Glenn Schlactus, and John Relman, with paralegal assistance from Jake Hogan.
A copy of the brief is here.