BOSTON (AP) — A federal appeals court recently deliberated on whether U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs had the authority to restore over $2.6 billion in federal funding that was previously cut from Harvard University by the Trump administration. During a hearing on Monday, arguments were presented from both sides regarding the legality of the judge's ruling and the implications of the funding cuts.
Judge Burroughs ruled last year that the cuts constituted illegal retaliation against Harvard for the university's refusal to comply with the administration's demands regarding governance and policies. The Trump administration had linked the funding cuts to Harvard's delays in addressing incidents of antisemitism on campus. However, Judge Burroughs found that the university's federally funded research was not significantly connected to claims of discrimination against Jewish individuals.
As a result of Judge Burroughs' ruling, funding was reinstated, allowing Harvard to access crucial federal research dollars. Despite the restoration of funds, a department attorney from the Justice Department, Michael Velchik, argued before a three-judge panel of the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that Burroughs did not possess the legal authority to mandate the administration to pay that funding. He contended that the issue was a contractual dispute more appropriately directed toward the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, which is established to handle lawsuits from citizens seeking monetary claims against the federal government.
Velchik asserted, “The problem is that the district court lacked jurisdiction to order specific performance. That is the only thing that we’re complaining about here.” He referenced recent decisions made by the U.S. Supreme Court to bolster his argument regarding jurisdiction.
On the opposing side, attorney Paul Clement, representing Harvard, argued that the case transcended a mere contractual disagreement. He posited that it involved significant issues of retaliation and discrimination. Clement maintained that the district court's decision to restore funding was the “perfect remedy” for the violations identified. “These are not claims that really depend on the contract in any particular way,” he stated.
Judge Joshua Dunlap, appointed by former President Donald Trump, pressed Clement to clarify whether Judge Burroughs had, in essence, issued an order requiring payment and whether Harvard could pursue broader legal claims without a contractual basis. The panel also included Judges Sandra Lynch and Gustavo Gelpi, both nominated by Democratic presidents. The judges did not offer an immediate ruling following the arguments.
Harvard's lawsuit accused the Trump administration of launching a retaliatory campaign against the university after it declined to comply with numerous demands articulated in a letter from a federal antisemitism task force. The letter urged extensive changes to address government allegations that Harvard had become a hub of liberalism while actively tolerating anti-Jewish harassment within its community.
Furthermore, the administration sought to limit Harvard's ability to host foreign students and threatened to revoke the institution's tax-exempt status, creating a contentious atmosphere within the realm of higher education. During the appellate arguments, Judge Lynch expressed doubt about the administration's assertion that Harvard had displayed indifference towards antisemitism. She remarked, “There were no findings. There was no investigation. There was simply an announcement, ‘We’re terminating against that backdrop.’” Judge Lynch implied that the administration was hesitant to confront the realities of the law and the facts surrounding the case.
