In a major legal development, Massachusetts’ highest court has ruled that Harvard University must face lawsuits from dozens of families who accuse the Ivy League school of failing to protect the bodies of their loved ones from being stolen, dismembered, and sold by a former morgue manager. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s unanimous decision overturns a prior ruling that had dismissed the claims, opening the door for victims’ families to seek justice and accountability from one of the nation’s most prestigious institutions.

Court Says Harvard May Have Acted in “Bad Faith”

The decision comes amid a scandal that has shaken the academic and medical communities. In its ruling, the court stated that the families of those whose remains were mishandled presented credible allegations that Harvard violated its duty to handle donated cadavers with dignity and respect. Writing for the court, Justice Scott Kafker emphasized that Harvard had a legal and moral responsibility to ensure that donated human bodies were properly safeguarded and used only for educational and scientific purposes.

“The university was obligated to act in good faith and ensure the respectful treatment and proper disposal of the donated remains,” Kafker wrote. “The plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that Harvard failed in this duty.”

This ruling reverses an earlier decision by a trial court that had dismissed the lawsuits on grounds that Harvard and its officials were immune from liability under Massachusetts’ Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (UAGA). The trial court had found that Harvard’s efforts, though flawed, were conducted in “good faith,” granting the university immunity. The Supreme Judicial Court, however, rejected that conclusion, finding that the families presented strong evidence that Harvard may have ignored warning signs and allowed misconduct to continue unchecked.

The Shocking Allegations Against Harvard’s Morgue Manager

At the center of the scandal is Cedric Lodge, the former morgue manager of Harvard Medical School. Prosecutors allege that Lodge, who had access to the university’s morgue, stole human remains—including heads, brains, skin, and other body parts—from cadavers donated to Harvard’s anatomical gift program. The thefts reportedly began as early as 2018 and continued until Lodge’s arrest in 2023.

Lodge and his wife, Denise Lodge, were charged with transporting stolen goods across state lines. Authorities say the couple took body parts from Harvard’s morgue in Boston to their home in Goffstown, New Hampshire, where they sold them online and through private buyers. The scheme reportedly involved multiple individuals and stretched across several states.

Harvard fired Lodge in 2023, shortly after the FBI launched its investigation. The university expressed horror and outrage at the allegations, calling them “morally reprehensible.” Still, families of the victims argue that Harvard should have detected and stopped Lodge’s activities much earlier.

Families Seek Justice and Accountability

Forty-seven relatives have filed twelve separate lawsuits against Harvard and several of its officials, claiming negligence, emotional distress, and breach of fiduciary duty. The families allege that Harvard failed to implement adequate safeguards to prevent the theft and desecration of donated bodies.

According to court documents, plaintiffs contend that Harvard’s anatomical gift program had poor security protocols, lacked proper inventory controls, and allowed unauthorized individuals to access the morgue. In some cases, outsiders were allegedly permitted to enter the morgue to view or purchase remains.

The families’ lawsuits emphasize that donors had entrusted Harvard with their bodies to advance medical research and education—a sacred commitment that the university broke. “Our loved ones wanted to contribute to science, not to be sold like property,” one plaintiff stated in a filing.

Legal Immunity Denied

Harvard had argued that under the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, it was immune from liability as long as it acted in “good faith” in handling donated bodies. However, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court determined that the families plausibly alleged that Harvard did not act in good faith.

Justice Kafker wrote that immunity cannot protect institutions that “willfully or recklessly ignore misconduct that violates their obligations under the Act.” The ruling reinstates claims not only against Harvard University but also against the managing director of its anatomical gift program, who had previously been dismissed from the case.

A Broader Implication for Academic Institutions

Legal experts say the ruling could have far-reaching consequences for universities, hospitals, and medical schools that rely on body donation programs. The decision signals that institutions cannot rely on statutory immunity when they fail to ensure oversight and ethical handling of donated remains.

“This case serves as a stark reminder that even the most respected academic institutions are not above the law,” said one legal analyst. “Transparency and accountability in medical donation programs are essential, and this ruling reinforces that responsibility.”

Harvard has not yet issued a statement regarding the court’s decision but previously expressed its commitment to cooperating with authorities and supporting the affected families. The university has also pledged to strengthen oversight of its anatomical gift program.

Next Steps in the Legal Process

With the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision, the lawsuits will now proceed to discovery and potentially to trial, where plaintiffs will have the opportunity to present evidence of Harvard’s alleged negligence. If found liable, Harvard could face significant financial penalties and reputational damage.

For the families involved, the ruling represents a crucial step toward closure and justice. “This decision finally gives us a chance to be heard,” one family member said. “We trusted Harvard to protect our loved ones’ remains, and they failed us.”

As the case moves forward, the outcome could reshape how academic institutions manage body donation programs and handle the ethical stewardship of human remains.

Stay informed about major legal developments shaping education, ethics, and institutional accountability. Visit LawCrossing to explore the latest legal jobs, career insights, and updates from the nation’s top law firms.

The post Massachusetts High Court Clears Way for Lawsuits Against Harvard Over Organ Theft Scandal first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Elite University Fights Back Against Alleged Political Retaliation and Academic Suppression

Harvard University filed a landmark lawsuit on Monday seeking to block the Trump administration’s efforts to freeze billions in federal research funding, accusing the White House of using funding as a weapon to stifle academic freedom, suppress dissent, and enforce ideological conformity.

Filed in federal court in Boston, the lawsuit marks the first major legal showdown between an Ivy League institution and President Donald Trump’s renewed efforts to reshape higher education funding policies. The complaint contends that the administration’s actions violate the First Amendment and represent an unprecedented intrusion into academic governance.

Trump’s Crackdown: What Triggered the Lawsuit?

According to the suit, the dispute began in March when the Trump administration initiated a sweeping review of over $9 billion in federal support for Harvard. The university was subsequently issued a list of demands, which included:

• A ban on face masks during protests
• The elimination of all DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) programs
• Full disclosure of Harvard’s foreign affiliations, funding sources, and personnel details

When Harvard declined to comply with these demands, the administration retaliated by freezing $2.3 billion in federal funding, threatening to revoke the school’s tax-exempt status, and proposing to restrict its ability to enroll international students.

Harvard’s Argument: Academic Independence Under Attack

“This case involves the Government’s efforts to use the withholding of federal funding as leverage to gain control of academic decision-making at Harvard,” the complaint reads.

The lawsuit paints the administration’s actions as arbitrary, unlawful, and politically motivated, targeting Harvard’s free speech rights and undermining the university’s institutional autonomy.

University President Alan Garber issued a defiant response, stating that Harvard will continue to oppose antisemitism while respecting civil rights laws. However, Garber argued that the Trump administration is not focused on anti-discrimination compliance but instead attempting:

“…to control whom we hire and teach.”

Political Context: From Campus Protests to Federal Retaliation

The lawsuit comes amid a broader conflict between elite U.S. universities and President Trump, who has accused higher education institutions of fostering antisemitism under the guise of pro-Palestinian activism. The administration has pointed to campus unrest in 2024 following Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, during which students organized widespread demonstrations.

Critics—including Jewish student groups—have argued that the administration is conflating criticism of Israeli policy with antisemitism in order to justify political crackdowns. Harvard is the first university to sue, but similar legal actions are underway from faculty at Columbia and elsewhere.

White House Response: “Gravy Train Is Over”

White House spokesperson Harrison Fields framed the issue as a matter of taxpayer accountability:

“The gravy train of federal assistance to elite institutions like Harvard is coming to an end. Taxpayer funds are a privilege, and Harvard fails to meet the basic conditions required to access that privilege.”

The administration’s position aligns with its broader effort to redefine federal funding eligibility based on ideological criteria. Other universities—including Columbia, Princeton, Cornell, Northwestern, and Brown—have also seen funding delays or freezes.

Broader Implications: Academic Freedom in Peril?

This escalating conflict raises fundamental questions about the limits of executive power, the independence of educational institutions, and the future of government support for scientific research.

By targeting prestigious schools over political disagreements, the Trump administration is signaling a potential realignment of federal education policy—one that could prioritize loyalty to certain ideological stances over academic excellence or constitutional protections.

If Harvard prevails in court, it could set a critical precedent limiting the ability of future administrations to impose political litmus tests on federal research funding.

Faculty-Led Lawsuits Add to the Pressure

Several Harvard faculty members and professors from Columbia University have filed separate lawsuits echoing Harvard’s claims. These suits argue that the Trump administration’s actions represent a chilling effect on academic expression, a breach of due process, and a violation of constitutional protections.

What Happens Next?

The case is likely to be closely watched across the legal, political, and academic spheres. It has the potential to reach higher courts—and possibly the Supreme Court—given its constitutional significance and the billions of dollars at stake.

Meanwhile, the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Energy, and Department of Education—among others—have all been named as defendants in Harvard’s lawsuit. As of this writing, none have issued a formal comment.

The post Harvard University Sues Trump Administration Over $2.3 Billion Federal Funding Freeze first appeared on JDJournal Blog.