In a Boston court hearing last week, US district judge Allison Burroughs ruled that the Trump administration had illegally frozen Harvard’s funding and violated its first amendment rights under the pretence of fighting antisemitism.
“A review of the administrative record makes it difficult to conclude anything other than that Defendants [the administration] used antisemitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically motivated assault on one of this country’s premier universities,” Burroughs wrote in her 84-page ruling.
“Their actions have jeopardised decades of research and the welfare of all those who could stand to benefit from that research, as well as reflect a disregard for the rights protected by the Constitution and federal statutes,” she continued.
As well as unfreezing the funding, Burroughs granted Harvard’s request for a permanent injunction preventing the administration from withholding any future grants to Harvard “in retaliation for the exercise of its first amendment rights”.
Burroughs reasoned that the administration’s snap decision to terminate funding, “ostensibly motivated by antisemitism”, was made before it learned of alleged antisemitism on campus, and thus the accusation was “at best … arbitrary, at worst pre textual”.
White House spokesperson Liz Huston quickly vowed to appeal the ruling by an “activist Obama-appointed judge,” maintaining that Harvard had “failed to protect their students from harassment and allowed discrimination to plague their campus for years”.
“Harvard does not have a constitutional right to taxpayer dollars and remains ineligible for grants in the future,” stated Huston, putting White House policy at odds with the legal ruling.
Their actions have jeopardised decades of research and the welfare of all those who could stand to benefit from that research
Allison Burroughs, US district judge
The stage was set for the lawsuit this April when the administration sent Harvard a list of demands which Harvard President Alan Garber said violated the university’s free speech rights and exceeded the government’s authority under the civil rights act.
After Garber publicly rebuked the demands, the government froze nearly USD $2.2bn in research funding, provoking Harvard to file a lawsuit against the administration.
Though the ruling is a significant legal victory, Harvard’s wider battle with the administration wages on, with government separately trying to revoke Harvard’s ability to enrol international students on multiple fronts, as well as demanding it turns over international student data.
Garber wrote in a statement that the September 3 ruling affirmed Harvard’s first amendment rights and validated its “arguments in defence of the university’s academic freedom, critical scientific research, and the core principles of American higher education”.
Yet with an appeal on the horizon, Garber said the university would “monitor further legal developments and be mindful of the changing landscape in which we seek to fulfil our mission”.
The legal battle has become the epicentre of Trump’s wider attack on US higher education, with Harvard the only university to challenge the administration in the courts.
Burroughs’ ruling was welcomed by associations and bodies across the sector, 28 of whom submitted an amicus brief in support of Harvard, led by the American Council on Education (ACE).
“Nothing less is at stake here than the ongoing ability of universities to tackle our toughest medical, scientific and technological challenges, to train our country’s workforce, and to teach our future leaders,” the brief read.
Responding to the ruling, ACE general counsel member Peter McDonough said he was “pleased to see a federal court affirm what we always knew to be true: the Trump Administration has ignored the law in pursuing politically motivated attacks on Harvard and other institutions.”
However, experts have said it is unlikely the funding will be restored immediately.
With an appeal looming, the case is likely to end up in the supreme court, currently composed of six conservative and three liberal justices.
Harvard Alumni are urging the Ivy League university not to strike a deal with the administration, with a letter from alumni body, Crimson Courage, amassing over 16,000 signatures calling on the university not to bow to political pressure.
Last month, it was widely rumoured that Harvard was considering a $500 million deal with the administration, though talks appear to have stalled in recent days, with significant attention on a potential agreement between the White House and America’s oldest and richest institution.
Applauding Burrough’s recent ruling, the group’s legal adviser Anurima Bhargava said: “The court put a full stop to the Trump Administration’s efforts to take money from Harvard in violation of academic freedom and of the United States Constitution.
“Not only is the bully stopped today, he is not allowed to try again tomorrow.”
