A federal judge in Boston has ruled that the Trump Administration must unfreeze billions of dollars in federal funding destined for Harvard University.
U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs — appointed by former President Barack Obama (D) — found that the federal government’s decision to freeze this money amounted to a form of illegal retaliation for the University’s refusal to comply with the Trump Administration’s requests.
While the Trump Administration has said that they froze the funds in response to Harvard’s lack of cooperation in the effort to reduce antisemitism on campus, Judge Burroughs suggested in her decision that this reasoning had little to do with the research being supported by the withheld funding.
“A review of the administrative record makes it difficult to conclude anything other than that [the government] used antisemitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault on this country’s premier universities,” Burroughs wrote.
“We must fight against antisemitism,” she continued, “but 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.”
“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,” said Burroughs.
The Associated Press has reported that the federal government plans to immediately appeal the ruling, with White House spokeswoman Liz Huston calling Burroughs an “activist Obama-appointed judge.”
“To any fair-minded observer, it is clear that Harvard University failed to protect their students from harassment and allowed discrimination to plague their campus for years,” said Huston. “Harvard does not have a constitutional right to taxpayer dollars.”
She added that the government would “appeal this egregious decision” because they “are confident [they] will ultimately prevail in [their] efforts to hold Harvard accountable.”
Similar remarks were offered to the Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF) by Madi Biedermann, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Communications at the Department of Education (DOE).
“In an unsurprising turn of events, the same Obama-appointed judge that ruled in favor of Harvard’s illegal race-based admissions practices – which was ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court – just ruled against the Trump Administration’s efforts to hold Harvard accountable for rampant discrimination on campus,” said Biedermann. “Cleaning up our nation’s universities will be a long road, but worth it.”
Harvard President Alan Garber has also responded to the ruling in an official statement.
“Even as we acknowledge the important principles affirmed in today’s ruling, we will continue to assess the implications of the opinion, monitor further legal developments, and be mindful of the changing landscape in which we seek to fulfill our mission,” Garber wrote.
“We will continue to dedicate ourselves to expanding, disseminating, and applying knowledge, knowing that our successes will make a real difference for individuals across the country and around the world,” the statement said.
This case was first brought in April of this year after receiving a letter from the Trump Administration with a wide range of demands that needed to be met in order to continue receiving federal funding.
Almost immediately after Harvard refused, the Administration announced that it would be cutting off all sources of federal funding to the University, prompting Harvard to file a lawsuit.
“All told, the trade-off put to Harvard was clear: Allow the government to micromanage your viewpoints and your academic institution or jeopardize your ability to pursue medical breakthroughs, scientific discoveries and innovative solutions,” said a June court filing submitted by the University, arguing that the move was “blatantly unconstitutional.”
The Trump Administration, on the other hand, has said in court filings that federal research grants are “not charitable gratuities.”
“Rather, the federal government grants funds to universities through contracts that include explicit conditions,” the Justice Department said. “If they fail to meet these conditions, the grants are subject to cancellation.”
Burroughs has largely rejected the federal government’s arguments, appearing unconvinced by the Trump Administration’s assertions that the money was being withheld due to alleged civil rights violations.
“The First Amendment claims here are about speech and whether the federal government is improperly infringing on the free speech rights of an academic institution and its employees,” she wrote in her decision. “The resolution of these claims might result in money changing hands, but what is fundamentally at issue is a bedrock constitutional principle rather than the interpretation of contract terms.”
As the Trump Administration is expected to appeal this ruling in the near future, it is not immediately clear if Harvard University and its affected research programs will actually see funding restored as the case continues to wind its way through the courts.
