In September 2025, the AAUP and a coalition of unions filed a lawsuit in federal court that resulted in a sweeping preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration’s attempt to coerce the University of California into ideological conformity by withholding $584 million in federal research funding. This ruling is a major victory for academic freedom—and a powerful example of coalition-based litigation. As attacks on teaching, research, and campus expression escalate nationwide, the UC case shows that working together is essential.
Once funding cuts began in August 2025, the pressure on UC to succumb to the Trump administration’s demands mounted. AAUP General Counsel Veena Dubal led the effort to quickly organize a broad alliance of organizations representing faculty, academic staff, postdoctoral scholars, researchers, nurses, graduate student workers, and other campus employees to file a lawsuit. The suit challenged the administration’s abrupt cancellation of research grants at the University of California, Los Angeles, and its demand that UC submit to federal monitoring of hiring, curriculum, admissions, and campus protests. These extraordinary conditions bore no relationship to the underlying grants. Instead, they followed a familiar playbook of deploying civil rights investigations as a pretext to pressure universities to purge “woke” viewpoints from campus.
Judge Rita Lin agreed. In her November 14 order, she concluded that the Trump administration’s actions amounted to unconstitutional coercion and retaliation, violated the First Amendment, exceeded the federal government’s spending power under the Tenth Amendment, and disregarded procedural safeguards required by Title VI, Title IX, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The court credited evidence from faculty and staff who had already curtailed teaching or research on topics they feared could be targeted. It emphasized the real-world stakes: Each year, UC hospitals see millions of patients and UC researchers receive billions in federal grants. By restoring sus pended grants and blocking future funding threats, the injunction halted a campaign that posed grave risks to academic freedom and public health.
The UC victory is not only a legal success but a strategic lesson for higher education. The strength of the case was rooted in the breadth and unity of the coalition that brought it. In affiliating with the AFT in 2022, the AAUP bolstered its national advocacy capacity. Litigating as a coalition represents the next step: a united front across unions representing the full spectrum of campus labor. The UC litigation included members and locals of the AAUP; the AFT; the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees; the Communications Workers of America; National Nurses United; the Service Employees International Union; the Teamsters; the United Auto Workers; the Council of UC Faculty Associations; and faculty associations from all ten UC campuses. These members recognized that it was their everyday labor that makes UC a driver of critical thought and research and a source of economic mobility for everyday Californians.
The UC case is not over, but for now, the court has halted the most coercive elements of the federal playbook and affirmed that universities cannot be forced to trade away academic freedom for financial survival.
This collective approach to litigation should be replicated because it produces advantages no organization could achieve alone. First, coalition litigation creates a richer evidentiary record. By pooling declarations from faculty, nurses, graduate student workers, and others, the UC coalition demonstrated the systemic impact of federal pressure. Second, collaboration allows unions to combine resources. Litigation of this scope requires extensive investigation, expert analysis, and rapid filings. By sharing costs and staff capacity, the coalition ensured that decisions were based more on legal strategy than on budgetary limitations. Third, coalition litigation strengthens on-the-ground solidarity. When unions litigate together, they build deeper relationships. In a moment when higher education faces political pressure from multiple directions, such solidarity is a form of power.
The message is clear: Academic freedom is most effectively defended when we defend it together. This case provides evidence that our partnerships with other unions broaden our capacity to defend academic freedom legally, politically, and institutionally. As threats to higher education mount, collective action must remain at the center of our strategy to preserve the free inquiry, open debate, and shared governance on which our universities depend.
Johnda Bentley is associate counsel at the AAUP.