In a landmark decision, a federal judge sides with Harvard over Trump’s funding freeze, calling it a “smokescreen” for an “ideologically-motivated assault on this country’s premier universities.”
getty
Harvard University won a major court battle in its ongoing fight with the Trump administration, when a federal judge found that the government’s suspension of more than $2 billion of the university’s federal research funding was unlawful.
In Wednesday’s landmark decision, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs ruled that the administration’s funding freeze amounted to illegal retaliation against Harvard for rejecting demands that it change various admissions, academic and governance policies to align with the White House’s preferences.
In her 84-page ruling, Burroughs forcefully rejected the government’s claim that it had targeted Harvard for alleged failures to adequately confront and combat antisemitism. “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,” wrote Burroughs, who was appointed to the bench by former President Barack Obama.
Both sides had asked the court for a summary judgment in the case, and Harvard had pressed for a ruling by September 3, saying that it feared that the government would contend — because of financial filing requirements — that it would not be possible to restore any of the frozen funds after that date.
The decision is almost sure to be appealed by the government, who has recently found the Supreme Court’s conservative majority to be a receptive audience for its claims of broad executive branch power. After the ruling was handed down, Education Secretary Linda McMahon posted on X, “The Trump Administration is fully committed to appealing this erroneous decision and will ensure that new taxpayer funding is not invested at any university that steadfastly refuses to uphold civil rights for all students.”
Although it will probably not be the final word on the dispute, Harvard got the ruling it wanted. Burrough’s order vacated the funding freeze; it dismissed grant termination notices the government had sent the university; and it permanently enjoined the government “from issuing any other termination, freezing of funds, stop work orders, or withholding of payment on existing grants or other federal funding, or refusal to award future grants, contracts, or other federal funding to Harvard in retaliation for the exercise of its First Amendment rights, or on purported grounds of discrimination without compliance with the requirements of Title VI.”
Now, the question becomes “what of it.” What does the decision mean for Harvard, for other universities that the administration has targeted, and for higher education in general?
Harvard’s Hand Is Strengthened
The ruling represented a resounding, if only initial, legal win for Harvard, which remains the only university to take the government to court over its suspension of federal research funding.
In her comprehensive ruling, the judge found that the administration’s actions had violated the First Amendment, the Administrative Procedure Act and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
The government argued that its actions were intended to force the university to correct what it alleged was a tolerance for antisemitism. But the judge wasn’t buying it, writing, “the idea that fighting antisemitism is Defendants’ 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 wrote.
What effect the decision might have on the settlement talks the university is reported to be conducting with the administration is not yet clear, but at least in the short run, Burrough’s sharp rebuke of the government’s tactics appears to strengthen Harvard’s hand. Of course, it might lead the administration to shift tactics, intensifying its efforts to stop Harvard’s enrollment of international students or challenging its tax-exempt status, as the president has suggested.
While Trump has recently insisted that the university pony up $500 million to settle the case, Harvard might now be more inclined to continue or even stiffen its resistance to what many in higher education see as an attempt to extort the university and gain political points for the president. On the other hand, a protracted appeals process still poses risks that the university would want to avoid, so it might use the court ruling as cover for further attempts to negotiate a better deal by claiming that it’s won the dispute on the merits and needs to bring the matter to a close.
Other Universities Will Take Notice
The Trump administration has cancelled all or most federal research funds at nine research universities over allegations of civil rights violations or other typically unproven accusations. They include Harvard, Duke, UCLA, Northwestern, Cornell, Princeton, Brown, Columbia and the University of Pennsylvania. While some of the funding has begun flowing again as a result of deals cut with the administration, almost $6 billion in total was put at risk.
Columbia paid $221 million as part of its resolution with the administration. Brown struck a $50 million deal to resolve its dispute. Penn did not pay a monetary settlement as part of its agreement to no longer permit transgender athletes to compete in female varsity sports.
Harvard’s court victory is likely to change the dynamics of future negotiations — not just for Harvard, but for all the remaining institutions. Might other schools now shore up their resistance? Could they follow Harvard’s lead and file new lawsuits challenging the government’s suspension of their research grants? Or will the government ease off some of its financial and policy demands, recognizing the possible weakness of its legal position?
A Good Decision For Higher Education
Even though a long legal process with an uncertain outcome lies ahead, the court’s decision sent a positive message that higher education desperately needed at this time. Judge Burroughs conceded that “Harvard was wrong to tolerate hateful behavior for as long as it did.” But she separated that problem from the the extreme actions the government took to punish the university, writing, “The record here, however, does not reflect that fighting antisemitism was Defendants’ true aim in acting against Harvard and, even if it were, combatting antisemitism cannot be accomplished on the back of the First Amendment.”
Acknowledging the importance of fighting antisemitism, she added, “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 said Harvard was doing its part, if belatedly, but “now it is the job of the courts to similarly step up, 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.”
Those are words university leaders wanted to hear. They’re a morale booster, a reminder that the courts remain willing to invalidate the administration’s more extreme actions, and an affirmation of the importance of research and scholarship at a time when both are under attack.
Former Harvard president Lawrence Summers captured the mood with a post on X, writing “this is a moment to be proud of the University and of President Alan Garber. Because of Harvard’s actions, the federal judiciary has taken a strong stand against extra-legal, due-process-denying, overtly political, and authoritarian actions by the current administration… There is a long road ahead. This decision will be appealed. Other universities remain in the crosshairs. New authoritarian steps are being taken every day. But this was a good day for Harvard—and an even better day for American democracy.”