During the three months since President Trump returned to power, his administration has prevented the speed and value of shock.
Harvard University bets that the White House strategy could be used against it.
The 51 -page trial that the university brought on Monday, intended to combat freeze by the administration of billions of federal funds, largely depends on a law which provides specific deadlines for federal agencies to write rules and impose penalties.
This wobbly battlestock of American law, known as the law on administrative procedure, was quoted in a majority of proceedings filed this year against the Trump administration, in particular complaints aimed at reversing funding for the United States agency for international development, local schools and the voice of America.
Although Mr. Trump’s strategy has made the headlines, the results of these cases will determine whether this approach will also produce victories in sustainable politics.
In the case of Harvard, the university seeks to repel the accusations of discrimination of the working group on the anti -Semitism of the administration, a group which was set up to evolve more quickly than the federal investigators of typical civil rights.
The administration preferred to work with Harvard and encouraged the university to “come to the good-faith negotiation table” instead of Grandstanding, said Harrison Fields, spokesperson for the White House. “Harvard shows himself,” said Fields. “But they know more than anyone who does not play ball will harm his team. They must comply with federal law in order to obtain federal funds. ”
Harvard turned to the law on administrative procedure after having faced a crushing of government requests which included, among other conditions, audits of his faculty of plagiarism and political opinions, as well as changes to admissions and hiring. The University argues that Washington seeks to exert an unconstitutional influence – and that its effort is defined by the negligence which has exploded from a regular procedure.
In some respects, zeal for the speed of administration has already proven costly. The list of requests sent by email to university on April 11 was sent by mistake, Trump officials said. But although there were different accounts on the reasons why the e-mail was poorly managed, the requests were so expensive that Harvard officials decided that they had no choice but to take the White House.
Trump officials have tried to reopen the negotiations in recent days, but Harvard refused. Instead, the university accused the administration of having violated the law.
“The defendants,” wrote Harvard in the trial, “failed to comply with their own regulations before freezing the federal financial aid of Harvard.”
In another section, Harvard notes that title VI of the civil rights law, which prohibits certain types of discrimination, requires a detailed process before it can be a frost base. The Trump administration, said Harvard, made “precise opposite”.
Elsewhere in his complaint, the University maintains that the government’s moves against him were “arbitrary and capricious” and could not be explained or explained reasonably.
For universities that set up legal fighting against the Trump administration and familiar with deliberative processes that traditionally govern federal subsidies, the procedure law can be their most essential tool.
In February, the law was the basis of a challenge to the efforts of the administration to change the way universities are reimbursed for the general costs linked to the National Institutes of Health Research. Last week, universities and their industrial associations once again turned to law after the Ministry of Energy sought to reduce the funding of research. Harvard now adopts a large part of the same manual.
But for an administration that reported, it would like to make an example of a high -level university – all the better than other universities – the steep pressure deluge is part of the point.
For some of the administration’s allies, the government haste to slow down what it supports is endemic anti -Semitism of the campus is a virtue. Federal government’s civil rights surveys are generally long and impregnated with procedures and policies which, according to administration allies, can worsen bad situations.
“My greatest concern was with the slow investigations, historically, and with the highlight in which students remain without recourse or recourse,” said Kenneth L. Marcus, the first civil rights official of the Department of Education during the first mandate of Mr. Trump, in an interview before the fight of the administration with Harvard entirely exploded.
Catherine Lhamon, who was assistant civil rights secretary in the Department of Education during Obama and Biden administrations, said the process was too long to continue violations of civil rights, especially when the offenses directly affect students. But she added that it was problems that Congress to consider.
“The congress decided at one point in the crucible in the history of our country that there should be federal protections on civil rights and a fairly expensive process for the government to say that these laws have been raped and that federal funds should not be spent,” said Lhamon. “What we see now is what the congress was worried when these principles were written is that someone could try to arm these particular protections.”
Harvard has also sought concepts of American law – such as protections in the first amendment – which are less concerned with bureaucratic procedures and easier sales in the still essential public opinion.
But even part of the argument of the first Harvard amendment is partly based on the procedure law, which indicates that an action of a federal agency which takes place “unlike constitutional law, power, privilege or immunity” is illegal.
“Regarding what Harvard does specifically, he repels the action of the agency, and we have a whole legal framework,” said Osamudia R. James, professor at the University of North Carolina whose specialties include administrative law.
Harvard officials hope that the government’s rapid tactics will lead the case towards a rapid end. The university trial asked the Massachusetts Federal District Court to speed up the case.
Until now, Harvard has not asked for a provisional step, such as a preliminary injunction. Although the university has not excluded the search for a kind of short -term help, its early approach is a signal that it thinks that the Court could be able to act definitively and quickly for reasons that may not require a lot of spectacle.
To assert his arguments, Harvard hired a list of legal heavyweights, many of which have in -depth experience in Washington and close links with the conservative establishment.
William A. Burck, who worked at the White House of George W. Bush and is now an external ethical advisor to Mr. Trump’s company and sits on the board of directors of the Fox Corporation, was the first lawyer listed in the trial. Robert K. Hur, the American lawyer of Maryland during Mr. Trump’s first term and later the special council who investigated the processing of President Joseph R. Biden Jr. classified documents, came next.
Other lawyers representing Harvard are Douglas Hallward-Diemeier, who was one of the litigants of the Supreme Court of Mr. Bush; Steven P. Lehotsky, who worked at the Ministry of Justice of Mr. Bush and was employed for judge Antonin Scalia; Mary Elizabeth Miller, who worked for judge Samuel A. Alito Jr.; and Katherine C. Yarger, former clerk of judge Clarence Thomas.
Jonathan F. Cohn was deputy attorney general under the administration of Mr. Bush. Scott A. Keller is a former Advocate General in Texas who then worked as a chief lawyer for Senator Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican.
The result of the legal case can be next to the point, said Professor James.
“If you finally lose the court, but millions of people now believe that all these institutions are centers of discrimination, that they have no advantage to the communities in which they operate, that they produce nothing of value,” she said, adding, “it could be a victory if you are hostile to higher education establishments.”
Seamus Hughes contributed research.
