Harvard seeks reinstatement of research funding

In federal court in Boston on Monday, Harvard contended that the Trump administration’s action to halt billions of dollars in research financing to the University was unconstitutional and infringed upon procedural requirements delineated in civil rights and administrative regulations.

The 2½-hour session, held before U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs, included attorneys from Harvard, the Justice Department, and the American Association of University Professors, who has also initiated legal action against the government for its sudden cessation of research funding, representing Harvard faculty members.

Throughout the session, Burroughs invested considerable time querying Justice Department senior attorney Michael Velchik on various matters, including the administration’s assertion of its right to terminate funding at any moment based on contractual obligations and scrutinizing the connection between that capacity and free speech concerns.

“If you can render decisions based on reasons focused on free speech, the implications of that are staggering to me,” Burroughs remarked.

The Trump administration has leveraged campus antisemitism in its actions against Harvard.

The University’s attorney, Steven Lehotsky, maintained that the government has attempted to compel Harvard to forfeit its independence through a series of requests that go beyond addressing antisemitism. He highlighted that these requests include assessments of viewpoint diversity among students and faculty, along with modifications to admissions and hiring policies. He argued that such impositions amount to a breach of academic freedom and the University’s First Amendment assurances of free expression.

“This is a flagrant, unapologetic infringement of the First Amendment,” Lehotsky stated. “The government claims this case revolves around finances. This case genuinely concerns federal government control over the internal operations of one of America’s oldest higher education institutions.”

Furthermore, Lehotsky asserted that the government’s measures contravene procedural stipulations found in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which mandate that a thorough investigation occurs, a hearing is conducted, and conclusions announced prior to funding being revoked.

The government failed to undertake a rational decision-making process that factored in the interests of those poised to benefit from academic and medical inquiry, the broader public, and others impacted by the withdrawal of research support, he expressed.

Arguing on behalf of the Trump administration, Velchik redirected the government’s stance, which had previously focused on claims of insufficient responses to antisemitism. Instead, Velchik indicated that the disagreement at hand was centered not on rights and academic autonomy, but finance: Harvard aims to reclaim billions in research funds, and the government retains the authority to determine the allocation of those resources.

He contended that the core disagreement with Harvard constitutes a contractual issue and emphasized that all government contracts include provisions allowing for the withdrawal of funding at any time.

All parties sought a summary judgment in the case to bypass a protracted trial. Burroughs remarked that she would expedite the process as much as possible, albeit without establishing a timeline for her ruling.