‘Back to the starting gate’: How a Supreme Court ruling could upend Harvard’s lawsuit
Harvard University is anxiously waiting for a decision from a federal judge over its lawsuit against the Trump administration seeking to restore canceled government funding for the university . But a recent Supreme Court decision might change the trajectory of the lawsuit.
Jodie Ferise, partner at higher education law practice at Church Church Hittle and Antrim law firm, said the result could have consequences across higher education, which has been in the cross hairs of the Trump administration .
"Harvard has been carrying higher ed on its back. Harvard's been graciously serving as this torchbearer while other institutions have capitulated. But I think much of that was because on the horizon was winning on the merits. And now, I would imagine it does bring additional weight to bear," Ferise said.
On August 21, the Supreme Court partially overturned a ruling from Judge William Young in Boston, where he ordered that the guidance from the Trump administration was illegal and that the National Institutes of Health restore nearly $800 million in research funding that was linked to diversity, equity and inclusion.
The Supreme Court didn't invalidate Young's judgment on the guidance but determined that Young lacked the jurisdiction to restore the grants, according to Ferise.
Instead, the Supreme Court ruled that court cases like these should be put in the Court of Federal Claims — but the "guidance" issue must make it all the way through the courts before individual grant cancellations can be disputed.
As such, legally, future grants can't be terminated along Trump's guidance due to ties to DEI. However, the grants that Young ordered to be restored are now in limbo — neither terminated nor active.
"I think they are using jurisdiction as a backdoor way of giving the administration what it wants," Ferise said.
Facing 'unbelievable pressure'
As part of the ruling, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in an opinion that "lower court judges may sometimes disagree with this Court's decisions, but they are never free to defy them."
Gorsuch's opinion can be seen as a message to judges like Judge Allison D. Burroughs, who is presiding over Harvard's cases, to make the right decision and side with the federal government, Ferise said.
"I think timing-wise, one could surmise that that may have been pointed at her and the decision that has not yet been rendered," Ferise said.
While Ferise said she doesn't know whether Burroughs will bend to the Supreme Court's decision, if Burroughs does rule in favor of Harvard, it will likely be appealed and head to the Supreme Court, which will likely find that Burroughs lacks the jurisdiction to rule in the university's favor, Ferise said.
That would force the lawsuit to send Harvard "back to the starting gate," to begin again in the Court of Federal Claims.
That elongated process could push Harvard to make a deal with the federal government instead of pursuing its litigation with the Trump administration, she said.
"That is unbelievable pressure being brought to bear to concede to the demands of an administration that's just holding them hostage for want of very important research funding," she said.
Talks of a potential deal have been looming for months and President Donald Trump told U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon in a cabinet meeting on Tuesday that the federal government shouldn't negotiate with Harvard.
"We want nothing less than $500 million from Harvard," he said. "Don't negotiate, Linda. They've been very bad."
The institution requested that Burroughs make a decision on the court case before September 3, when Harvard has said much of the damage from the Trump administration's billions in research grant and other funding cuts would be irreversible .
If other major funding sources don't step up to cover the gap of federal funding, it would pause or force the closure of major research projects, including many intending to find cures for or help alleviate human diseases .
What Harvard's lawyers say
In a document filed on August 24, following the Supreme Court ruling, Harvard's lawyers argued that the university doesn't only seek individual grant terminations to be restored.
The university also intends for the federal government to comply with the First Amendment to stop retaliating against the university and to comply with Title VI, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin.
As such, Harvard's lawyers argue that the case should remain under Burrough's jurisdiction.
"At the very least, this Court should declare that the Government acted unlawfully and grant Harvard the prospective injunctive relief and vacatur of agency policies that it seeks," the lawyers said.
Despite Harvard's lawyers attempting to redirect the lawsuit to be centered on the First Amendment and Title VI, Ferise said the original complaint from Harvard's lawyers was focused on the federal funding freeze.
"I hope that it would be seen different[ly]," Ferise said. "I just don't know if the Supreme Court would.
More Higher Ed
Read the original article on MassLive .
