As the Trump administration moves into 2026, it is grappling with a series of high-stakes legal battles that have the potential to fundamentally alter the legal and financial landscape of higher education in the United States. Courts are playing an increasingly central role in defining the limits of federal power over universities, with unresolved cases spanning critical issues from research funding and diversity initiatives to campus speech and immigration policies.
Harvard University Leads Legal Charge Against Federal Actions
Harvard University's ongoing legal dispute with the Trump administration stands as the most prominent higher education lawsuit heading into 2026. The conflict erupted after the federal government froze $2.2 billion in research funding, a move triggered by Harvard's refusal to comply with extensive federal demands related to allegations of antisemitism.
In response, Harvard filed a lawsuit against the administration and successfully challenged a separate attempt to revoke its authority to enroll international students, securing an early court order that blocked this decision. The administration further escalated tensions by threatening Harvard's patent revenue and accreditation status.
In a significant development, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs ruled in September that the funding freeze violated Harvard's First Amendment rights and failed to adhere to required procedural standards. The administration appealed this ruling in December, setting the stage for a potentially landmark Supreme Court decision. Jon Fansmith, senior vice president for government relations at the American Council on Education, cautioned that a Supreme Court ruling favoring the administration could establish a dangerous precedent for federal overreach into academic institutions.
Universities Challenge Federal Research Overhead Caps
Another major legal front involves federal efforts to impose caps on indirect research costs. The National Institutes of Health initiated a policy to limit overhead reimbursement to 15%, prompting lawsuits from more than 20 state attorneys general and leading higher education associations.
The plaintiffs argued that such caps would severely undermine biomedical research capabilities across the country. The American Council on Education and other groups characterized the policy as a self-inflicted wound on the nation's research infrastructure.
Federal judges have temporarily blocked the NIH cap, along with similar restrictions imposed by the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Defense. With appeals still ongoing, research universities remain in a state of uncertainty regarding their future funding stability.
DEI Grant Terminations Face Legal Scrutiny
Legal challenges continue against mass cancellations of grants linked to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policies. Researchers and state attorneys general filed lawsuits against NIH after hundreds of approved grants were terminated. While a district court initially ruled the policy illegal, the Supreme Court later determined that claims for funding restoration must proceed through the Court of Federal Claims.
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell expressed deep disappointment with this ruling, highlighting the ongoing legal tensions. The administration has appealed the underlying legality ruling, which remains pending before the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The National Science Foundation faces parallel litigation after terminating grants associated with DEI, environmental justice, and misinformation research, further complicating the legal landscape.
Immigration Enforcement and Campus Speech Under Legal Fire
Additional lawsuits challenge the administration's approaches to immigration enforcement and campus speech regulations. The Stanford Daily sued Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, alleging that student journalists feared deportation due to their political expression. A judge denied the government's motion to dismiss this case.
In a related ruling, District Judge William Young affirmed that non-citizens lawfully present in the United States retain full free speech rights, describing the issue as constitutionally fundamental.
Texas Campus Speech Restrictions Head to Trial
Texas is confronting litigation over a state law that bans most expressive activities on public campuses overnight. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression sued the University of Texas System, arguing that the law violates the First Amendment.
Judge David Alan Ezra blocked enforcement of the law, famously stating that the First Amendment does not have a bedtime. This case could establish a national benchmark for how campus speech regulations are interpreted and enforced across the country.
These collective legal battles reflect sustained resistance from universities, faculty groups, students, and states to policies pursued by President Donald Trump since his return to office. The outcomes of these cases will likely shape the future of federal-university relations for years to come.
