Harvard's lawsuit is straightforward because the government's actions were straightforward. - - The government may not "interfere with private actors' speech to advance its own vision of ideological balance" (Moody v. NetChoice). The government demanded Harvard achieve "viewpoint diversity" in "each department, field, or teaching unit" (i.e. ideological balance). As Harvard notes, "the First Amendment makes clear that the authority to achieve that objective rests with the University rather than the Government." - - The government may not "rely[] on the 'threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion ... to achieve the suppression' of disfavored speech" (NRA v. Vullo). The government demanded censorship on condition of receiving federal funds, and President Trump explicitly said Harvard "teaches Hate and Stupidity, and should no longer receive Federal Funds" (i.e. viewpoint discrimination). - - The government "may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests" (Perry v. Sindermann). The government demanded Harvard give up its autonomy and First Amendment rights on condition of receiving federal funds. - - The government must follow a specific process in order to revoke federal funding under Title VI. It did not follow this process. - - Even if the government did follow the appropriate process, the funding revocations would need to be targeted "to the particular program, or part thereof, in which ... noncompliance has been found." Instead, the government's funding revocations were indiscriminate. In short, pretty much everything we at @TheFIREorg have said from the get-go.