Two big cases underway over Trump's higher education policy. Here are the key takeaways
In courtroom 18 at the John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse, U.S. District Judge William Young heard closing arguments in American Association of University Professors (AAUP) v. Rubio. The organization's chapters at several universities, as well as the Middle East Studies Association, sued Secretary of State Marco Rubio in March over what it described as an "ideological deportation policy" the administration was using to retaliate against noncitizens for pro-Palestinian speech.
Steps away, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs heard oral arguments in Harvard's lawsuit against the administration over the more than $2.5 billion in federal funding it pulled from the school, citing its alleged inaction on antisemitism.
The First Amendment lies at the heart of both cases, which could have significant implications for the future of higher education and free speech in the U.S.
Here are key takeaways from the trials.
Research, civil rights and lives are at stake, attorneys say
Harvard's attorneys argued that the loss of federal funding would significantly damage the school's ability to conduct research that serves a public benefit while not meaningfully addressing antisemitism, NPR reported.
The Trump administration, on the other hand, said Harvard's Jewish students are harmed by the school's alleged inaction on antisemitism, which it has said amounts to a violation of federal civil rights law.
The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, along with co-counsel Sher Tremonte law firm, sued Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the Trump administration on behalf of the association's chapters at several universities, including Harvard, and the Middle East Studies Association in March.
In AAUP v. Rubio, attorneys from the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and Sher Tremonte law firm argued that the Trump administration's 'ideological deportation policy' affected not only the activists who have been arrested thus far but created a chilling effect on the free speech of noncitizen students and faculty.
The government's attorneys disputed the existence of such a policy. If it did exist, lawyer William Kanellis said, 'you'd see many more arrests.'
Judges questioned some arguments
Both judges were skeptical of some of the arguments attorneys attempted to make in their courtrooms.
The notion that the government has the authority to slash Harvard's federal funding for any reason was a 'major stumbling block for me,' Burroughs said. She said there would be 'staggering' implications for constitutional law if the government had the power to make such decisions 'for reasons oriented around speech.'
Burroughs also questioned how revoking Harvard's federal grants contributed to the government's stated objective of combatting antisemitism at the university, as the Harvard Crimson reported.
Young, meanwhile, appeared skeptical of the AAUP's argument that the Trump administration created and implemented a new 'ideological deportation' policy.
He also questioned the plaintiff's arguments surrounding Canary Mission, an organization that says it 'documents individuals and organizations that promote hatred of the USA, Israel and Jews on North American college campuses and beyond.' The plaintiff's attorneys characterized it as an extremist group the government relied upon to identify noncitizens for investigation and arrest.
Young was skeptical of the attorneys' characterization of the group and said it's 'perfectly appropriate for the government to take leads from any source.'
First Amendment issues at the heart of both cases
Alexandra Conlon, a representing the plaintiffs in the deportation case, said that by revoking visas and green cards based on noncitizens' pro-Palestinian activism, the federal government was 'systematically violating the First Amendment' and seeking to chill speech it disagrees with.
On the first day of the trial, Justice Department attorney Victoria Santora said the First Amendment applies to both citizens and noncitizens alike. But she later backtracked to say 'there are nuances to the First Amendment,' Politico reported.
Department of Justice attorney Ethan Kanter continued that argument July 21, saying noncitizens do not have First Amendment rights to the same extent as U.S. citizens. While they may have such rights in some capacity, he said, they are 'context dependent and in relation to the compelling government interest at play.'
Lawyer Steven P. Lehotsky, representing Harvard in the funding lawsuit, said the administration's actions against the university reflect a 'blatant, unrepentant violation of the First Amendment,' the Harvard Crimson reported.
Administration's moves are 'part of a broader attack'
Ramya Krishnan, a Knight First Amendment Institute attorney representing the AAUP in the deportation case, said both that case and the one over Harvard's federal funding were part of the Trump administration's higher education "power grab."
'These are part of a broader attack on higher education in this country in weakening the independence of these institutions, in undermining them as a site for discourse and intellectual inquiry," she said, "and I think that people should be very worried about that.'
The Trump administration has accused schools of engaging in "exploitative and unlawful practices" and said its steps to overhaul higher education would "rebuild public trust" in such institutions.
Burroughs said she would issue an opinion in the Harvard case soon after oral arguments concluded on July 21, the Harvard Crimson reported. The school has requested a ruling by Sept. 3, which is its deadline for submitting paperwork to close out its federal grant funding.
Young did not offer a timeline for issuing his opinion in the deportation case.
BrieAnna Frank is a First Amendment Reporting Fellow at USA TODAY. Reach her at bjfrank@usatoday.com.
USA TODAY's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump announces 'massive' trade deal with Japan
President Donald Trump says the US has agreed to a "massive" trade deal with Japan, one of the country's largest trading partners. The plan would result in Japan investing $550bn (£407bn) in the US and paying a 15% tariff, Trump said in a post on social media. He added that Japan would open its economy to US goods, including cars, trucks, rice and certain agricultural products. Japan's Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba welcomed the announcement, saying it was "the lowest figure to date among countries with trade surpluses with the US". "I just signed the largest trade deal in history, I think maybe the largest deal in history with Japan," Trump touted at a White House event on Tuesday evening. "They had their top people here, and we worked on it long and hard. And it's a great deal for everybody. I always say it has to be great for everybody. It's a great deal," he added. Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Ishiba said the agreement would mean US tariffs on vehicles and parts would be cut to 15% from 25%. "We were the first in the world to reduce tariffs on cars and auto parts without any quantity restrictions," he said. "The agreement does not include any reduction of tariffs on the Japanese side," Ishiba added. The BBC has reached out to the White House and Japan's embassy in Washington for more details of the trade agreement. Bringing its main tariff rate down to 15% is Japan's "best compromise at this stage", Shigeto Nagai from research firm Oxford Economics told BBC News. The planned investment in the US by Japan included in the announcement "will be a huge boost to restore the US, fitting in with Trump's story of reviving US manufacturing with more jobs," he added. In a letter sent to Japan this month, Trump threatened a 25% tariff on the country's exports to the US if there wasn't a new trade deal struck before 1 August. That was one percentage point higher from the 24% rate announced during his so-called Liberation Day on 2 April. The April tariffs plan, which included duties on many US trading partners across the globe, were paused for 90 days following worldwide market turmoil. It allowed Tokyo's trade representatives time to negotiate with their counterparts in Washington. Japan's benchmark share index, the Nikkei 225, was more than 3% higher on Wednesday in Tokyo, with strong gains for shares in motor industry giants - including Toyota, Nissan and Honda. The apparent deal comes as Ishiba is under pressure to step down after his Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) lost its majority in the country's upper house in elections over the weekend. The LDP had already lost its majority in Japan's more powerful lower house last year.
CNBC
24 minutes ago
- CNBC
CCTV Script 23/07/2025
As the August 1st deadline approaches, the U.S. government is intensifying efforts to reach trade agreements with various countries. On Tuesday local time, progress was made in trade negotiations between the U.S. and Southeast Asian nations. According to the joint statement released by the White House, U.S. tariffs on Indonesia have been reduced from the previously threatened 32% in April to 19%. In return, Indonesia will lower tariffs to 0% on 99% of U.S. exports to Indonesia, covering sectors such as agricultural products, healthcare products, aquatic products, as well as communications technology, automobiles, and chemicals. In terms of tariff rates, the Special Adviser to the Indonesian President on International Trade said in an interview with CNBC that while the original 32% tariff level would have significantly impacted Indonesia's economy, the current 19% tariff is expected to shift the effect on GDP from a negative 0.6% to a positive growth of 0.5%. "We will be able to avoid, hopefully, the potential retrenchment in our labor intensive industries and exports, which have been the worst hit with the 32% tariff." It is worth noting that, according to the joint statement, Indonesia will comprehensively ease non-tariff barriers on U.S. industrial and agricultural products, including localization requirements, certification standards, import permits, and more. Specifically, Indonesia has agreed to exempt U.S.-invested companies and their products of origin from local content requirements. Previously, this policy was seen as a key measure to promote local employment in Indonesia, but it has now been relaxed. Secondly, Indonesia has agreed to adopt for American-made cars exported to Indonesia, which is also a positive development for U.S. automakers. Additionally, Indonesia will lift export restrictions on critical minerals. Moreover, overnight, Trump announced that the U.S. would impose a 19% tariff on the Philippines. This tariff adjustment follows a rise from 17% in April to 20% at the beginning of this month, and has now been reduced to 19%, matching the rate applied to Indonesia. According to U.S. government data, the U.S. trade deficit with the Philippines last year was $4.9 billion, with bilateral trade totaling $23.5 billion. In response to Trump's proposal for the Philippines to open its market to the U.S. and implement zero tariffs, the Philippines has yet to respond. Previously, the Philippines stated that it could not implement zero tariffs on U.S. goods like Vietnam and Indonesia, as it would harm the interests of domestic businesses. The president of the Philippine Exporters Confederation said in a CNBC interview that, based on a survey of local exporters, 10% of respondents reported their buyers were in a wait-and-see mode due to uncertainty about absorbing additional costs. However, most of these orders have already been successfully redirected to other markets. For Southeast Asian countries, they are closely monitoring the progress of trade negotiations between their neighbors and the U.S. This attention underscores the interconnected nature of regional trade dynamics and the potential ripple effects of bilateral agreements on neighboring economies. "We're really worried about the negotiations of our competitors. So sort of especially in the region. Because if what happens to Vietnam happens to the other countries here who have the same products with us, then we have a problem in the US, at least."
UPI
24 minutes ago
- UPI
Columbia disciplines dozens of pro-Palestine protesters
Pro Palestine protesters are arrested by NYPD Police officers on the campus of Columbia University on Wednesday, May 7, 2025, in New York City. Arrests were underway late Wednesday after about 100 pro-Palestinian protesters at Columbia University took over the campus' Butler Library just days before final exams. File Photo by Derek French/UPI | License Photo July 23 (UPI) -- Columbia University has disciplined dozens of pro-Palestine protesters amid pressure from the Trump administration, which has targeted the school amid its crackdown on left-leaning ideology. In a statement Tuesday, the school said the unspecified sanctions were administered after its University Judicial Board determined they were warranted concerning the disruption of Butler Library in May and the Spring 2024 encampment during Alumni Weekend. The number of students punished was not mentioned, but sources told CNN that it was more than 70. "While the University does not release individual disciplinary results of any student, the sanctions from Butler Library included probation, suspensions (ranging from one year to three years), degree revocations and expulsions," Columbia said in a statement. The announcement comes as the school faces pressure from the Trump administration, which has targeted universities -- in particular elite schools -- over left-leaning activism it describes as anti-Israel and anti-Semitic and diversity, equity and inclusion policies. The Trump administration has claimed protests that erupted across campuses nationwide demonstrating against Israel's war in Gaza were violent and anti-Semitic, and has used them to punish those institutions. At Columbia, pro-Palestine protesters on May 7 disrupted a portion of Butler, occupying rooms there and vandalizing property, resulting in two public safety officers sustaining injuries. In March, the Trump administration canceled some $400 million in federal grants and contracts to the university "due to the school's continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students." Columbia has said the halt in funding forced it to lay off 180 researchers. Columbia said since March it has responded to the Trump administration by instituting what it has called structural reforms and other improvements. "Our institution must focus on delivering on its academic mission for our community," Columbia said in the Tuesday statement. "And to create a thriving academic community, there must be respect for each other and the institution's fundamental work, policies and rules. Disruptions to academic activities are in violation of University policy and Rules, and such violations will necessarily generate consequences." Since returning to power in January, President Donald Trump has used his executive powers to go after the United States universities, in particular its Ivy League schools. In April, he signed an executive order to reform the university accreditation system to penalize those that employ DEI policies. Harvard University has taken the Trump administration to court over the president's freezing of more than $2.4 billion in what the school said was a pressure campaign "to force Harvard to submit to the government's control over its academic programs." This month, it has launched four federal investigations into George Mason University over its alleged DEI policies. The New York Chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations lambasted Columbia on Tuesday for its "grotesquely oppressive" decision to mass-punish its students. "The students sat in unity to urge ending complicity in an active genocide. Columbia, seemingly bowing to political pressure from the Trump administration, has done more than undermine free speech and higher education. The University has sold its morality, academic integrity and commitment to students," CAIR-NY executive Director Afaf Nasher said in a statement.
