Judge rules for Harvard in lawsuit against Trump, restoring billions in grants
A federal judge largely sided with Harvard University over the Trump administration's cuts to nearly $3 billion in federal funding in the name of campus antisemitism, according to an opinion released on Wednesday.
Judge Allison D. Burroughs ruled that the administration could not enforce demands and funding freezes from more than a dozen letters — including an April 14 letter that froze $2.2 billion in research funding.
She determined that they were arbitrary and capricious and violated the First Amendment and Title VI.
As such, any other termination, funding freeze or stop work order or refusal to award future grants, contracts or federal funding to Harvard is illegal.
Burroughs wrote in her decision that it was the job of the courts to "act to safeguard academic freedom and freedom of speech as required by the Constitution, and to ensure that important research is not improperly subjected to arbitrary and procedurally infirm grant terminations, even if doing so risks the wrath of a government committed to its agenda no matter the cost."
In her 84-page ruling , she said that there is "little connection between the research affected by the grant terminations and antisemitism," and described antisemitism as a "smokescreen."
"In fact, a review of the administrative record makes it difficult to conclude anything other than that Defendants used antisemitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault on this country's premier universities, and did so in a way that runs afoul of the APA, the First Amendment and Title VI," she said.
She continued by stating that the Trump administration's actions have jeopardized "decades of research and the welfare of all those who could stand to benefit from that research."
Spokespeople from Harvard and the White House didn't respond immediately to a request for comment.
The decision comes at the end of the deadline that Harvard set for Burroughs, a date by which the university has to begin closing out its federally funded research projects .
While Burroughs issued an opinion on the case, it still could be appealed. President Donald Trump took to Truth Social previously to state that the Trump administration would "IMMEDIATELY appeal, and WIN" when Burroughs ruled against them.
Further, a recent Supreme Court decision could also determine that Burroughs lacks the jurisdiction to restore the federal funding in the Harvard case.
Burroughs, in her ruling, said the court has "done its best to follow the Supreme Court's limited recent guidance, which is preliminary and might well change over the course of this litigation."
She called the jurisdictional issue "something of a red herring," stating that regardless of which court the case resides, the Trump administration is pressuring Harvard to "accede to the government's demands" in a way that violates Harvard's rights.
"The idea that fighting antisemitism is [the Trump administration's] true aim is belied by the fact that the majority of the demands they are making of Harvard to restore its research funding are directed, on their face, at Harvard's governance, staffing and hiring practices, and admissions policies — all of which have little to do with antisemitism and everything to do with Defendants' power and political views," she said.
At the same time, she said that the Trump administration is right to combat antisemitism and use "all lawful means to do so."
"Harvard was wrong to tolerate hateful behavior for as long as it did," Burroughs said.
"We must fight against antisemitism, but we equally need to protect our rights, including our right to free speech, and neither goal should nor needs to be sacrificed on the altar of the other," she continued.
What has happened between the Trump administration and Harvard?
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.
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, who spoke with MassLive before Burroughs's ruling, said she didn't know whether Burroughs would bend to the Supreme Court's decision, she said that if Burroughs does rule in favor of Harvard, it would 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 .
