Harvard scored another major courtroom victory Thursday as a federal judge rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to hold the university liable for allegedly failing to protect Jewish and Israeli students from antisemitic harassment. According to the Associated Press, U.S. District Judge Richard G. Stearns dismissed the case on August 13, 2026, after finding that the government had not plausibly established that Harvard was currently violating federal civil rights law.
The Harvard lawsuit centered on allegations that the university failed to adequately respond to antisemitism that surfaced around pro Palestinian demonstrations following Hamas’ October 7, 2023, attack on Israel. According to the Associated Press, Stearns found that most of the incidents identified by the government came from the 2023 to 2024 academic year, while only a small number occurred later. He concluded that the cases were “too isolated and episodic” to demonstrate a continuing violation at Harvard.
That distinction became central to the ruling. Stearns did not conclude that concerns over antisemitism on campus were nonexistent. Instead, according to the Associated Press, the court determined that the Justice Department had failed to establish the ongoing institutional violation needed to sustain its case under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The government filed the Harvard lawsuit in March 2026 and sought to recover federal research money awarded to the university after October 2023.
The Justice Department announced its lawsuit on March 20, accusing Harvard of race and national origin discrimination against Jewish and Israeli students in violation of Title VI. In its case, the government alleged that Jewish students had been “harassed, physically assaulted, stalked, and spat upon.” The department argued that Harvard had been deliberately indifferent to harassment and sought court intervention to force the university into compliance with federal civil rights requirements.
The Justice Department signaled Thursday that the fight may not be finished. Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general for civil rights, told the Associated Press, “We disagree with the ruling and are assessing next steps.” The department had not announced its next legal move at the time of the ruling.
Harvard has repeatedly challenged the government’s characterization of its response to antisemitism. When the Harvard lawsuit was filed, the university said in an official statement that it “cares deeply about members of our Jewish and Israeli community and remains committed to ensuring they are embraced, respected, and can thrive on our campus.” Harvard also said it had taken proactive steps to address antisemitism while enforcing its harassment and discrimination policies.
Those steps extended beyond public statements. Harvard’s Presidential Task Force on Combating Antisemitism and Anti Israeli Bias was established to examine the campus climate and recommend changes. According to Harvard, the university has continued implementing recommendations from the group. The Associated Press also reported that Harvard President Alan M. Garber has pointed to leadership changes and revisions to disciplinary procedures intended to make enforcement “more consistent, fair and effective.”
The dismissal also lands in the middle of a much larger confrontation between Harvard and the Trump administration. According to PBS News, U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs ruled in September 2025 that the administration had unlawfully cut more than $2.6 billion in federal research funding to Harvard. Burroughs found that the government had placed unconstitutional conditions on the money and described antisemitism as a “smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault” on universities.
The Harvard lawsuit was only one front in that broader clash. The Associated Press reported that the administration has also attempted to restrict Harvard’s access to federal research funding and interfere with its ability to enroll international students. Those actions followed Harvard’s refusal to accept a list of federal demands concerning university policies and governance. Courts have blocked major portions of those efforts, including the earlier funding cuts.
The litigation has continued even while the two sides have explored a possible settlement. According to the Associated Press, Harvard and the administration have held negotiations, and Trump has previously said an agreement appeared close. The filing of the Justice Department’s civil rights case in March, however, underscored how far apart the parties remained on the government’s allegations and the remedies it wanted Harvard to accept.
Thursday’s decision narrows the government’s legal options in one of its most aggressive battles with higher education. The ruling does not resolve the wider debate over Harvard’s handling of antisemitism, nor does it erase the experiences described by Jewish and Israeli students. What it does establish is that allegations of serious past misconduct were not enough, in Stearns’ view, to plausibly show that Harvard remained institutionally out of compliance with Title VI when the government brought its case. For the Trump administration, any next move in the Harvard lawsuit will now have to contend with a federal judge’s finding that the government failed to demonstrate the continuing civil rights violation at the heart of its claim.
