Harvard wanted a judge’s ruling by today in its case against Trump. Here’s why
Today is the deadline Harvard University set when it asked a federal judge to rule in its lawsuit seeking to restore nearly $3 billion in canceled government funding .
The date of September 3 is important to Harvard because it is when the university has to begin closing out its federally funded research projects.
"Once that close-out occurs, Harvard anticipates the Government will take the position that no restoration of funds is possible," Harvard lawyers said in court filing in June .
A Harvard spokesperson declined to comment about the deadline.
The fight between the Trump administration and Harvard began in April when the federal government warned the school could risk losing $9 billion in funding if it did not meet a list of demands that includes an overhaul of Harvard's leadership structure, admissions and hiring.
Harvard rejected those demands, saying the administration sought to "invade university freedoms long recognized by the Supreme Court."
Then the fight over funding unfolded, leading to nearly $3 billion in canceled grants over campus antisemitism and the federal government barring the institution from receiving new federal grants .
Other investigations and threats have been made against the institution, some of which have focused on the university's international students, leading to Harvard opening a second lawsuit against the Trump administration.
While Judge Allison D. Burroughs, who is presiding over Harvard's cases, has criticized the Trump administration lawyer's arguments as " a little bit mind-boggling ," a recent Supreme Court decision might change the trajectory of the lawsuit — and make Burroughs's decision a bit more complicated.
In the meantime, the public is anxiously awaiting whether a deal between the Trump administration and Harvard will pan out.
The New York Times first reported that there could be a $500 million deal on the table at the end of July. Other institutions, such as Columbia University and Brown University , have struck deals with the federal government recently.
During a cabinet meeting at the end of August , President Donald Trump publicly called for Harvard University to pay at least $500 million in a settlement to restore nearly $3 billion of its federal funding.
"We want nothing less than $500 million from Harvard," Trump told U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon.
"Don't negotiate, Linda. They've been very bad," he continued.
What is the Supreme Court ruling?
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.
How does the ruling impact Harvard's case?
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.
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 .
