Judicial triumph for Harvard in research financing dispute

A U.S. District Court in Boston on Wednesday overruled the federal government’s annulment of $2.2 billion in research funding to Harvard, declaring unconstitutional the government’s effort to instigate campus alterations that the University contends would infringe on its First Amendment rights and academic independence.

The lawsuit requesting restoration of the funding was initiated by Harvard in April following a cessation order established by the government.

The summary judgment, delivered by U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs, countered the Trump administration’s assertion that its actions were a response to antisemitism at Harvard.

While addressing antisemitism is “undeniably a significant and admirable goal,” the court noted, the claims amount to little more than “a facade” for extensive demands aimed at aligning the University with the administration’s favored ideological stance. This initiative breaches Harvard’s First Amendment rights and neglects procedural standards established by federal law, the court asserted.

“The notion that combating antisemitism is Defendants’ genuine purpose is contradicted by the reality that the majority of the demands made upon Harvard to reinstate its research funding pertain, on their surface, to Harvard’s governance, personnel and hiring practices, and admissions policies—all of which are largely irrelevant to antisemitism and directly related to Defendants’ authority and political ideologies,” the court stated, adding: “The First Amendment holds significant value and the right to free speech must be diligently protected. Free expression has always been a cornerstone of our democracy.”

Harvard President Alan Garber responded to the summary judgment in a message to the community on Wednesday.

“The decision reinforces Harvard’s First Amendment and procedural rights, and affirms our claims in defense of the University’s academic autonomy, crucial scientific exploration, and the essential principles of American higher education,” he stated. “While we recognize the vital principles validated in today’s ruling, we will persist in evaluating the consequences of the opinion, tracking further legal developments, and being attentive to the evolving environment in which we aim to accomplish our mission.”

The court’s ruling, which the Trump administration has expressed intentions to appeal, represents the latest chapter in a conflict that has intensified since April 11, when the government linked federal funding to Harvard to a set of stipulations that included modifications to governance and hiring procedures and ideological audits of faculty, students, and staff.

“No government—irrespective of which party holds power—should dictate what private institutions can teach, whom they can admit and employ, and which fields of study and inquiry they can pursue,” Garber remarked in reaction to the stipulations. Shortly thereafter, the administration revealed it was suspending $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts to the University, funds that were ultimately rescinded.

The sudden termination of funding, which encompassed multiyear grants and contracts, has significantly disrupted University research. It has jeopardized investigations into various fields, including cancer, Alzheimer’s, and climate change, prompting a rush for alternative funding sources.

In May, Garber and Provost John Manning announced a $250 million fund aimed at stabilizing the University’s research initiatives amidst the ongoing dispute with the Trump administration. In a July update, Garber, Manning, and University financial officials indicated that the federal government’s actions could potentially cost Harvard up to $1 billion annually.

The government has claimed that antisemitic occurrences on campus contravened civil rights legislation and that Harvard’s efforts to tackle the issue have been insufficient. The University has countered by highlighting numerous actions focused on combating campus bias, including the release of task force reports addressing antisemitism and anti-Muslim bias. Garber described these findings as “hard hitting and painful” and committed that they would serve as a foundation for further reforms.

The court acknowledged these initiatives in its ruling.

“We must stand against antisemitism, but we equally must safeguard our rights, including our right to free speech, and neither objective should require sacrificing the other. Harvard is currently, albeit tardily, undertaking the necessary measures to address antisemitism and appears ready to do even more if necessary. Now it is the court’s duty to similarly step up, to act to protect academic freedom and freedom of expression as mandated by the Constitution, and to ensure that crucial research is not unjustly subjected to arbitrary and procedurally flawed grant terminations, even if that entails the risk of inciting the ire of a government committed to its agenda regardless of the consequences.”