The Complaint is here. The Harvard Crimson reports:

Harvard sued the Trump administration in federal court on Monday over its multibillion dollar cuts to the University’s research funding, accusing the White House of undertaking an arbitrary and unconstitutional campaign to “punish Harvard for protecting its constitutional rights.”

The move comes just one day after the Trump administration reportedly planned to cut another $1 billion in federal grants and contracts from Harvard, on top of an existing $2.2 billion cut that was announced last week.

And it sets in motion a historic legal clash as Harvard attempts to combat the Trump administration’s devastating multi-agency campaign to slash the University’s funding in exchange for deep concessions — including federal audits of Harvard’s programs, agreements to screen international students for their beliefs, and the installation of administrators who will ensure the White House’s demands are carried out.

“The tradeoff put to Harvard and other universities is clear: Allow the Government to micromanage your academic institution or jeopardize the institution’s ability to pursue medical breakthroughs, scientific discoveries, and innovative solutions,” Harvard’s lawyers wrote in the Monday filing.

MSNBC:

This year’s White House Easter Egg Roll event will feature activities “courtesy” of a number of corporate sponsors, including several tech companies that made financial contributions to President Donald Trump’s inaugural committee. According to a statement from first lady Melania Trump’s office, the Monday event will have activities sponsored by an array of organizations.

These include a “reading nook” by Amazon, a “bunny hop stage” by YouTube and an “AI-powered experience and photo opportunity” by Meta — further underscoring how several tech giants are cozying up to the Trump administration. A YouTube spokesperson said in a statement that the company has participated in the White House Easter Egg Roll in the past “and we do so in line with the administration’s process.” Meta declined to comment to Politico and Amazon did not respond to its request for comment; both corporations donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration fund.

The Easter Egg Roll will also feature the traditional egg roll and egg hunt, with eggs “donated by American egg farmers,” the first lady’s office said. According to the American Egg Board, about 2,500 dozen eggs — or 30,000 eggs — are being provided for the egg roll, at a time when egg prices for consumers have soared.

Karen Tumulty at the Washington Post:

“We are all afraid,” Murkowski said Monday at an event in Anchorage. “It’s quite a statement. But we are in a time and a place where — I don’t know — I certainly have not been here before. And I’ll tell you, I’m oftentimes very anxious myself about using my voice, because retaliation is real. And that’s not right.”

An acknowledgment of the obvious, to be sure. But a video of her comments has gone viral since it was posted by the Anchorage Daily News. Which raises the question: Why aren’t more Republicans breaking with a White House that has such little regard for the rule of law?

Though her willingness to break from the pack is a reflection of the senator’s own character, at least part of the answer also lies in the fact that Murkowski does not have to compete in aRepublican primary to win reelection.

That’s because Alaska elects its lawmakers by ranked-choice voting, which reduces the influence of extremists in both parties.

Politico:

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries on Sunday pushed back on David Hogg’s effort to fund primary challengers against select Democrats in deep blue seats, arguing in favor of a more efficient allocation of party resources.

“Here’s the thing,” Jeffries told Jonathan Karl on ABC’s “This Week.” “I’m gonna really focus on trying to defeat Republican incumbents so we can take back control of the House of Representatives and begin the process of ending this national nightmare that’s being visited upon us by far-right extremism.”

Leaders We Deserve, an organization co-founded by Hogg, now the Democratic National Committee vice chair, last week said it would shell out $20 million to younger, more progressive challengers of Democratic incumbents in safe blue seats.

The resultant schism has pitted Hogg and allies looking to inject fresh faces and enthusiasm into the party against key Democrats and insiders who are preaching unity and believe that money could be spent on winning back the House majority.

Michael Kang (Northwestern) has posted this draft on SSRN (forthcoming, Northwestern University Law Review). Here is the abstract:

Hyperpartisanship has hit century-long highs in American politics and is emboldening state government attempts to undermine election outcomes by using control over state lawmaking structure to strip away authority, and sometimes outright unseat, partisan opponents after they win elected office.  And even as traditional norms against such moves have eroded, the Supreme Court itself has taken a pro-partisanship turn in removing judicial checks against such moves under equal protection and constitutional structure.  The Article proposes shifting from challenges under those doctrines to a new approach under electoral due process for confronting this new generation of anti-democracy.  Federal due process law restricts the government from changing the legal rules of an election after the election is held and underscore the constitutional understanding that the government cannot commit by state law to a set of rules only to change the rules after the election has been held. On these terms, electoral due process similarly restricts the government from meaningfully stripping the authority of an elective office only after the election, and from expelling or impeaching the winning candidate after the election, as an anti-democratic means of changing the legal consequences of the election after a partisan opponent has won.  The government commits to an allocation of government lawmaking authority dictated by the election result and must abide by that commitment, as a due process matter, even when a partisan opponent wins and assumes that authority.  The Article explains the jurisprudential advantages of shifting from equal protection and constitutional structure to electoral due process as well as details the political context of hyperpartisanship and the multiplying threats to democratic elections.