Harvard U Says It Has a Constitutional Right to Your Tax $$$

[Hoodat]

Harvard U Says It Has a Constitutional Right to Your Tax $$$

M Dowling  |  May 4, 2025

Harvard found a new clause in the Constitution called “we’re entitled.”

In their filing, they insist that taxpayer dollars continue to flow into their coffers, even as students pay exorbitant tuitions. They have a “constitutional” right to it.

The University says they are defending their constitutional rights, and the government is punishing “Harvard for protecting its constitutional rights.”

Only public schools have this clause.

“Harvard University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.”  .  .  .

https://www.independentsentinel.com/harvard-u-says-it-has-a-constitutional-right-to-your-tax/


If Harvard does not wish to surrender its independence, then I suggest it do the same as Hillsdale College and Bob Jones University chose to do by declining all federal funding.

[Hoodat]

Here's the example that Harvard should be following:

PROUDLY INDEPENDENT FROM THE START.

Hillsdale does not accept even one penny of federal or state funding for student grants, loans, or scholarships. Being steadfastly and completely independent of taxpayer support is essential to being a truly independent institution—one not beholden to government regulations that conflict with our educational mission.

Our generous financial aid packages—and the educational outreach we conduct online and around the country—are funded by donors who share our principles of self-government and integrity.

https://www.hillsdale.edu/independence-/



This goes to show that liberals are the greediest bastards on the planet.  They want to do whatever the heck they want, but still demand the federal government fork over billions even to the point of filing a frivolous lawsuit with zero Constitutional basis.  And unlike Hillsdale, Harvard already has so much money that the interest alone from their endowment would cover room and board for every single student enrolled year after year.  Harvard should be free.  Yet they continue to charge one of the highest tuitions in the world.  And even with that, they still feel entitled to billions more from the taxpayer with zero strings attached.  Bastards!

[The_Reader_David]

Humbug.  Harvard has a contractual right to the money in grants already funded by winning them under the terms of offer given by Federal agencies offering research grants and grants to support educational programs as established by Congress.  Harvard has a right to tuition from students (similarly on the basis of contact law, not the Constitution), and the students have a right to apply for and receive Federal student financial aid under the terms set by Congress for such programs, which they my spend at Harvard. So long as they meet the criteria established by Congress in the relevant statutes, they have a statutory right to tax-exempt status. But none of these are Constitutional rights.  As to Constitutional rights, Harvard has the right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press (under Citizens United, which made clear that organizing as a corporation does not strip those rights).

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Humbug.  Harvard has a contractual right to the money in grants already funded by winning them under the terms of offer given by Federal agencies offering research grants and grants to support educational programs as established by Congress.  Harvard has a right to tuition from students (similarly on the basis of contact law, not the Constitution), and the students have a right to apply for and receive Federal student financial aid under the terms set by Congress for such programs, which they my spend at Harvard. So long as they meet the criteria established by Congress in the relevant statutes, they have a statutory right to tax-exempt status. But none of these are Constitutional rights.  As to Constitutional rights, Harvard has the right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press (under Citizens United, which made clear that organizing as a corporation does not strip those rights).

keep dreaming.

You seem to believe what you are saying.

King George also had a 'right' to tax the colonies, too.

How did that end up for him?

[Hoodat]

Humbug.  Harvard has a contractual right to the money in grants already funded by winning them under the terms of offer given by Federal agencies offering research grants and grants to support educational programs as established by Congress.  Harvard has a right to tuition from students (similarly on the basis of contact law, not the Constitution), and the students have a right to apply for and receive Federal student financial aid under the terms set by Congress for such programs,  .  .  .

@The_Reader_David

I strongly recommend that you take the time to read Harvard's legal complaint first before offering commentary that has zero connection to their argument.

The US government reserves the right to freeze or suspend any contracts at any time for any reason, which is precisely what the government has done in this case.  And the Constitutional objections that Harvard has raised on why the government should be denied their contractual right to freeze/suspend are ridiculous at best.

The irony for you here is that it's the federal government that is exercising its contractual rights while Harvard is the one suing to deny them said rights.

[Hoodat]

Harvard's claims:

Counts 1 & 2:  VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT

Fact:  While government made request for Harvard to change its speech, they in no way denied them the right to their speech.  Harvard is still free to spew their anti-Semitic Jew-hate with reckless abandon.  No one is blocking them from that.


Count 3:  IN EXCESS OF STATUTORY AUTHORITY (VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-1)
(ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT CAUSE OF ACTION)

Harvard argues 'that a court must “hold unlawful and set aside” final agency action that is “in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C)'

Unfortunately for Harvard, the federal government does indeed have statutory right to suspend these contracts without cause.  And Harvard knows that.  They just don't like it.


Count 4:  FAILURE TO FOLLOW DEFENDANTS’ OWN REGULATORY PROCEDURES

Same argument as Count 3.  Harvard argues that there is no allowance for this under the contract (while tacitly admitting that 'freezes' are legit and allowable).  Of course at no point does Harvard cite the actual contract itself.


Count 5:  ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS AGENCY ACTION

Hey, now there's an argument for you.  The old 'Capricious action' statute.  Good luck with that stellar legal strategy.


Count 6:  VIOLATION OF STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

Here's the money quote:  "Defendants also cannot rely on any inherent constitutional authority under Article
II of the Constitution to terminate or freeze Harvard’s research funding."

Yes, you heard that right.  Harvard is saying that the Executive Branch actually going by what the Constitution says is a violation of their Constitutional authority.  Maybe they should have asked someone at GWU Law before issuing such an idiotic legal argument.

Judge shopping is the only thing that can save them at this point.  Because Harvard does NOT have a Constitution right to taxpayer money.  Because that would constitute involuntary servitude.  (See:  Amendment XIII)

https://www.harvard.edu/research-funding/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2025/04/Harvard-Funding-Freeze-Order-Complaint.pdf

[mountaineer]

BREAKING: Education Secretary Linda McMahon just sent a letter to Harvard's president telling them to "no longer seek GRANTS from the federal government, since none will be provided."
"Harvard will cease to be a publicly funded institution"

https://twitter.com/DeAngelisCorey/status/1919538426094755984

[DefiantMassRINO]

The Golden Rule:  He who has the gold makes the rules.

If you don't want the Federal Government telling you your business, don't be dependent upon Federal funding - that includes Federal college tuition loans, grants, financing, and underwriting.

Private means no taxpayer dollars.  If an institution is dependent upon taxpayer dollars, it has become a public institution, not a private one.

[berdie]

The Golden Rule:  He who has the gold makes the rules.

If you don't want the Federal Government telling you your business, don't be dependent upon Federal funding - that includes Federal college tuition loans, grants, financing, and underwriting.

Private means no taxpayer dollars.  If an institution is dependent upon taxpayer dollars, it has become a public institution, not a private one.

That's my thinking as well.

[Bigun]

That's my thinking as well.

Same for anyone with more than two functioning brain cells.