A federal judge threw out the Justice Department's Title VI suit seeking to claw back nearly $1 billion from Harvard, ruling the antisemitism incidents cited were too isolated to show the school remains out of compliance today.
The Justice Department sued Harvard in March 2026, alleging the university showed "deliberate indifference" to antisemitic harassment of Jewish and Israeli students following Hamas's October 7, 2023 attack on Israel — a violation, DOJ argued, of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The suit sought to block future federal funding to Harvard and recover roughly $1 billion in grants the government had already paid out.
On August 13, U.S. District Judge Richard G. Stearns dismissed the case. He found the incidents DOJ cited "too isolated and episodic" to support the claim that Harvard remains out of compliance with federal law. According to the ruling, the government's amended complaint focused almost entirely on incidents from the 2023-24 school year and pointed to just three incidents from March 2025 — not enough, the judge wrote, to plausibly infer that "institutionalized noncompliance with Title VI persists at Harvard to this day."
Harmeet Dhillon, the assistant attorney general leading DOJ's Civil Rights Division, said the department disagreed with the ruling and was assessing next steps, including a possible appeal to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. NPR reported that Harvard did not respond to a request for comment.
Read this ruling for what it actually says, not for what either side's press line implies. Judge Stearns didn't find that the 2023-24 harassment incidents never happened or that Harvard's response was adequate — he found that DOJ's complaint, as written, didn't show ongoing noncompliance in 2026. That's a pleading problem, not a clean bill of health.
One lawsuit going away doesn't mean the federal government's broader adversarial posture toward Harvard is over. DOJ can appeal, or refile a narrower case built around more recent incidents. If you're weighing Harvard against peer schools, treat this as one data point in an ongoing story, not a resolution — the same way we've flagged Yale's parallel DOJ negotiations and the medical-school race cases at UCLA and Duke Law.
This case was decided on legal pleading standards, not a factual finding about what campus feels like day to day. If antisemitism, campus speech, or how a school handles protest and harassment complaints matters to your college list, don't outsource that judgment to a lawsuit headline — talk to current students, read the school's own climate reports, and visit if you can.
This is a different legal theory than the race-in-admissions cases we've covered at Duke Law, UCLA, and Yale's medical school — Title VI harassment liability, not admissions criteria — but it's part of the same enforcement push against elite universities. A dismissal on one front doesn't slow the others down. Expect this administration to keep pressing wherever it has an opening, and expect schools like Harvard and Yale to keep negotiating and litigating simultaneously.
Enter your grades and test scores to see your odds at colleges across the country.
Check my chances →