Full-Service Law Firm solving complex challenges through bold thinking, precise execution, and shared purpose.

Full Service Law Firm | Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

Specializing in the Intersection of Business &amp; Government

Meet our team of trusted advisors, strategic thinkers, and community builders dedicated to client success.

Learn about our full-service legal and business solutions, designed to address complex challenges for leading organizations across industries.

Access thought leadership, news, and resources to stay informed about the latest trends, legal developments, and industry innovations.

Discover how partnership, bold thinking, and precise execution drive results for clients nationwide.

Explore how our national reach and local expertise support clients across the United States and beyond.

Grow at a firm designed to bring out your best.

On August 13, 2026, a federal district court judge in the District of Massachusetts dismissed the Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) lawsuit against Harvard University that alleged the university violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.<a href="#_ftn1" id="_ftnref1">[1]</a> This dismissal marks an important development in both Harvard’s ongoing disputes with the current administration and in Title VI enforcement matters, more broadly.

core/paragraph

core/heading

The DOJ initiated this lawsuit in March 2026, alleging that Harvard failed to adequately address antisemitic activity on its campus and allowed it to persist as students protested Israel’s military actions in Gaza.<a href="#_ftn2" id="_ftnref2">[2]</a> Specifically, the complaint alleged that Jewish and Israeli students have endured intentional discrimination and a hostile educational environment at Harvard since October 7, 2023, contravening Title VI’s prohibitions against discrimination based on national origin and ethnicity.<a href="#_ftn3" id="_ftnref3">[3]</a> The lawsuit sought to freeze all of Harvard’s federal grant awards as well as recover all federal money it has received since October 7, 2023.<a href="#_ftn4" id="_ftnref4">[4]</a>&nbsp;

The alleged incidents primarily took place during the 2023–2024 academic year, with only three incidents alleged to have taken place after March 2025.<a href="#_ftn5" id="_ftnref5">[5]</a> Importantly, Harvard was put on notice of its alleged noncompliance on June 30, 2025.

In granting Harvard’s motion to dismiss, the court focused on the “isolated and episodic” nature of the incidents complained of and found that those incidents do not support a plausible inference of Harvard’s ongoing noncompliance with Title VI.<a href="#_ftn6" id="_ftnref6">[6]</a> The court repeatedly noted that the DOJ’s amended complaint contains no allegations evidencing Harvard’s noncompliance after June 30, 2025, when the DOJ provided Harvard with the requisite notice of its alleged noncompliance.<a href="#_ftn7" id="_ftnref7">[7]</a>

The court also addressed the DOJ’s argument that it had stated a viable claim for damages associated with the 2023–2024 academic year. After assuming without deciding that an action for recovery of previously-granted funds qualifies as an appropriate remedy, the court held that Title VI “unequivocally authorizes the Government to take action only if and after it ‘has advised the appropriate person or persons of the failure to comply with the requirement and has determined that compliance cannot be secured by voluntary means.’”<a href="#_ftn8" id="_ftnref8">[8]</a> Again, the court found the lack of allegations of noncompliance after Harvard had received notice on June 30, 2025, to preclude an action for damages. Furthermore, the court recognized the statutory incentives for compliance—“Congress’s intent was not to penalize a wayward funding recipient but instead to incentivize it to bring itself into compliance with Title VI.”<a href="#_ftn9" id="_ftnref9">[9]</a>

The DOJ has publicly stated it is evaluating next steps,<a href="#_ftn10" id="_ftnref10">[10]</a> suggesting it may pursue an appeal of the district court’s dismissal.

In the broader context, Harvard has been a focal point of the current administration’s enforcement efforts relating to higher education. In addition to this now dismissed lawsuit, Harvard has also been the subject of federal funding cuts, which have since been reversed,<a href="#_ftn11" id="_ftnref11">[11]</a> attempts to revoke Harvard’s ability to enroll international students,<a href="#_ftn12" id="_ftnref12">[12]</a> and allegations of withholding admissions data.<a href="#_ftn13" id="_ftnref13">[13]</a> This latest development adds to the challenges the current administration has faced in its enforcement efforts against Harvard.

Universities remain at the forefront of DOJ scrutiny under the current administration, with numerous investigations and lawsuits being brought against universities across the country. This ruling indicates the interconnected nature of alleged incidents, their potential for recurrence, and their temporal proximity to the notice of noncompliance and filing of the suit may be key factors in pleading a viable Title VI claim. Universities should continue to closely monitor the DOJ’s efforts to pursue these claims to assess the appropriate response to complaints and allegations of Title VI noncompliance.

Moreover, the court’s ruling may be helpful to higher education institutions facing similar enforcement actions under Title VI or Title IX, which has statutory language identical to Title VI’s language requiring notice and a determination “that compliance cannot be secured by voluntary means.” <a href="#_ftn14" id="_ftnref14">[14]</a> Higher education institutions facing allegations of noncompliance from federal agencies under either statute should determine if they can take advantage of opportunities for voluntary compliance to avoid litigation. And if faced with litigation, institutions should assess whether there are any allegations of noncompliance after the institution received notice of the alleged violation sufficient to support the government’s enforcement action.

For further information or to discuss how these developments may affect your business, please contact the authors or your Michael Best attorney.

core/separator

<a href="#_ftnref1" id="_ftn1">[1]</a> Memorandum and Order on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss at 4, U.S. v. President and Fellows of Harvard Coll. (D. Mass 2026) (No. 26-11352) [hereinafter Memorandum].

<a href="#_ftnref2" id="_ftn2">[2]</a> Complaint, U.S. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (D. Mass 2026) (No. 26-11352).

<a href="#_ftnref3" id="_ftn3">[3]</a> Amended Complaint at 51–54, U.S. v. President and Fellows of Harvard Coll. (D. Mass 2026) (No. 26-11352).

<a href="#_ftnref4" id="_ftn4">[4]</a> Id.at 57.

<a href="#_ftnref5" id="_ftn5">[5]</a> See generally id. (containing numerous references throughout to incidents primarily occurring in the 2023–24 year).

<a href="#_ftnref6" id="_ftn6">[6]</a> Memorandum, supra note 1, at 2.

<a href="#_ftnref7" id="_ftn7">[7]</a> Id. at 2.

<a href="#_ftnref8" id="_ftn8">[8]</a> Id. at 2–3 (quoting 42 U.S.C. §&nbsp;2000d-1).

<a href="#_ftnref9" id="_ftn9">[9]</a> Id. at 3–4.

<a href="#_ftnref10" id="_ftn10">[10]</a> See Laura Spitalniak, DOJ’s Antisemitism Lawsuit Against Harvard Dismissed, HigherED Dive (Aug. 13, 2026), <a href="https://www.highereddive.com/news/dojs-antisemitism-lawsuit-against-harvard-dismissed/827845/">https://www.highereddive.com/news/dojs-antisemitism-lawsuit-against-harvard-dismissed/827845/</a>.

<a href="#_ftnref11" id="_ftn11">[11]</a> Memorandum and Order (Dkt. 238), President and Fellows of Harvard Coll. v. U.S. Dep’t of Health and Hum. Servs. (D. Mass 2025) (No. 25-11048).

<a href="#_ftnref12" id="_ftn12">[12]</a> Complaint, President and Fellows of Harvard Coll. v. U.S. Dep’t Homeland Sec. (D. Mass 2025) (No. 25-11472).

<a href="#_ftnref13" id="_ftn13">[13]</a> Justice Department Sues Harvard University for Withholding Race-Related Admissions Documents, U.S. Dep’t Just. (February 13, 2026), <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-harvard-university-withholding-race-related-admissions-documents">https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-harvard-university-withholding-race-related-admissions-documents</a>.

<a href="#_ftnref14" id="_ftn14">[14]</a> Compare 42 U.S.C. §&nbsp;2000d-1 with 20 U.S.C §&nbsp;1682.

Empty rows of modern lecture hall seating with warm natural light streaming in through a large window.

Judge Dismisses DOJ Antisemitism Case Against Harvard: What Universities Need to Know

Related People

Related Capabilities

You may also be interested in these

California Legislature Passes Bill Limiting CIPA Website-Tracking Lawsuits

Wisconsin Circuit Court Reverses Shorewood Beach Access Trespass Conviction, Potentially Expanding Public Access Rights Along Lake Michigan

Does Your Church Need a Bag Policy? What Size, What Standard, and Why It Matters Now?