Harvard University has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, challenging a sweeping set of federal demands that the school claims violate constitutional protections and threaten its academic independence. The case, filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, seeks to halt a $2.2 billion federal funding freeze imposed after Harvard refused to comply with policy changes demanded by multiple federal agencies.

The university is represented by a coalition of major law firms including Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan; King & Spalding; Lehotsky Keller Cohn; and Ropes & Gray. The suit names as defendants eight federal agencies, including the Departments of Education, Justice, Energy, Health and Human Services, and Defense, as well as NASA and the National Science Foundation.

At the center of the dispute are two letters sent to Harvard in April—dated April 3 and April 11—that demanded sweeping changes, including the elimination of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs in favor of “viewpoint diversity,” a ban on pro-Palestinian student organizations, and disciplinary action against students who participated in related campus protests.

Harvard’s complaint argues that the government’s demands amount to unconstitutional overreach. “The tradeoff put to Harvard and other universities is clear: Allow the Government to micromanage your academic institution or jeopardize the institution’s ability to pursue medical breakthroughs, scientific discoveries, and innovative solutions,” the university wrote in its filing, as reported by Law.com.

In a response letter dated April 14, Harvard asserted its commitment to combating antisemitism and highlighted changes implemented over the past 15 months to create a more inclusive campus. The university rejected the administration’s demands as incompatible with constitutional principles and academic freedom long protected by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The funding freeze represents a major escalation in the Trump administration’s broader campaign to curtail DEI initiatives and suppress perceived political bias at academic institutions. Legal experts say the case could have far-reaching implications for the scope of federal authority over educational institutions and the balance between government funding and institutional autonomy.

This is a developing story and will be updated as the litigation progresses.