
Even if Harvard wins this court case, the Trump fight won't go away
Legal analysts say Harvard has a strong case in arguing that the U.S. government improperly cut $2.2 billion in federal funding from the Ivy League school. The federal district judge presiding over a key hearing Monday appeared skeptical of the government's arguments.
But President Trump is already threatening to appeal. He has many ways to inflict damage on the university meanwhile, and Harvard's prospects—should the case end up at the Supreme Court—are less clear.
'Harvard can win in the courtroom but still lose almost everything it's fought for," said Allison Wu, the co-founder of the 1636 Forum, a Harvard alumni community named for the year the university was founded, who supports the university's case.
Monday's closely watched court hearing showcased an unprecedented clash between Harvard and the very U.S. government its graduates worked to create in 1776—and have helped shape in the 2½ centuries since.
The Trump administration, alleging the nation's oldest university has strayed from its academic mission, fallen victim to 'ideological capture" and tolerated antisemitism, cut off billions in federal research funds after Harvard rejected demands it says amount to a government takeover.
In arguments before Judge Allison Burroughs, an Obama appointee, Harvard mounted two main arguments. It asserted that the Trump administration imposed unconstitutional conditions on federal funds, requiring it to surrender its First Amendment rights to academic freedom to obtain a public benefit.
The university—in an argument that some legal analysts say could be more potent—also contended that the government declared the school in violation of civil-rights laws without affording it due process to address the allegations, or without following the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, which limits arbitrary action by federal agencies.
Michael McConnell, a professor at Stanford Law School and a former federal circuit judge, said Burroughs has a clear path to granting Harvard's motion for summary judgment—meaning a decision declaring that no trial is necessary, because undisputed facts entitle one side to win.
'By far the most straightforward thing for the court to say is that this claim of antisemitism is a claim under Title VI" of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which sets out procedures to review allegations of discrimination in federally funded programs. The government, McConnell said, doesn't even claim to have followed those procedures before finding Harvard in violation.
'That's not to say that other claims might not kick in at a later stage," he added.
Harvard says the government has ignored extensive steps it has taken to combat antisemitism on campus and broaden intellectual diversity in the months following the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel.
Burroughs, the judge, repeatedly pressed a Justice Department lawyer Monday while hearing arguments from both sides on why each deserved a swift victory. 'You can't violate the constitution to terminate a contract," Burroughs said. 'There are limits to what you can terminate and why and how."
President Trump indicated in a social-media post that he already expects a loss.
'When she rules against us, we will IMMEDIATELY appeal, and WIN," Trump said on Truth Social Monday, calling the judge a 'TOTAL DISASTER."
Legal analysts anticipate the case will advance beyond the Boston court.
'It's hard to imagine a district court judge in Boston ruling against Harvard, and the First Circuit is chockablock with Harvard grads, so if the administration prevails, that relief is likely to come from the Supreme Court," said John Malcolm, director of the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation.
Four of the nine Supreme Court justices also hold Harvard degrees, but that proved of scant help in 2023, when the court struck down Harvard's admissions formula, which used an applicant's race as a plus factor to achieve a diverse undergraduate class. The court split 6-3—and its Harvard alumni divided evenly—over the case, which overruled precedents dating from 1978 to find that consideration of race in admissions was unconstitutional.
Malcolm, who himself attended Harvard Law School, said that while the specific legal issues differ, the funding case recalls the broader context of the admissions case, where Harvard prevailed at the district and First Circuit courts before reversal by the Supreme Court.
Harvard argues in the funding case that the federal government failed to follow the typical administrative processes used for terminating grants or adjudicating a discrimination case.
Robert Tsai, a law professor at Boston University, said he thinks Harvard's administrative law arguments are in some ways the easier ones to make, given the unprecedented nature of the government's actions. But the First Amendment arguments still matter, Tsai said, and he's skeptical the government can make it into a contract case as they tried to do Monday in court.
'It would be hard for me to expect the judge to put on such blinders given all the weighty actions," Tsai said.
In addition to cutting federal research grants, the Trump administration has tried to block international students from enrolling at Harvard—which is tied up in a separate lawsuit—threatened its tax-exempt status and probed foreign funding donations.
Burroughs appeared skeptical Monday about the government's contention that it canceled the funds over antisemitism, asking at one point why they didn't have to go lab by lab to determine where antisemitic actions had taken place.
Michael Velchik, an attorney for the Justice Department arguing the government's case, said Harvard has exhibited an indifference to antisemitism that applies to the entire university.
Burroughs later called it a 'big stumbling block" that the executive branch could decide what's discriminatory or racist without any procedure.
Velchik, who appeared in court alone without other government lawyers, ended his arguments by pushing back on the contention that the government is anti-Harvard. 'I reject that," he said, saying the government wants a Harvard that's the best research institution in the world.
'How can they be the best research university," Burroughs wondered, with the erasure of $2.2 billion in federal funding.
Write to Jess Bravin at Jess.Bravin@wsj.com and Sara Randazzo at sara.randazzo@wsj.com
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


India Today
26 minutes ago
- India Today
Nasa under attack: Mass layoffs, budget cuts hit American space dominance
As the American space agency prepares for the launch of four astronauts to the International Space Station as part of Crew-11 mission, Nasa is in the midst of an unprecedented scientists, engineers, and workers across the United States are protesting a sweeping wave of layoffs following dramatic budget cuts enacted under the Trump administration. Nearly 20% of the agency's workforce, estimated at 3,870 employees, are set to leave, dramatically shrinking Nasa from over 18,000 employees to around 14,000. Many agency veterans say morale has plummeted. (Photo: Reuters) advertisementSWEEPING CHANGES The departures come via the Deferred Resignation Program (DRP), a buyout-style initiative introduced as part of a broader federal effort to create a 'leaner and more efficient' officials insist the agency remains committed to safety and exploration goals, including planned missions to the Moon and Mars, internal experts warn that the loss of institutional knowledge and talent poses grave risks to future protests broke out over the weekend, with hundreds of Nasa employees, contractors, their families, and supporters gathering outside iconic sites like the Smithsonian National Air and Space UNDER THREATRally organisers decried what they called 'preemptive compliance' with an unfinished budget, fearing the agency's storied legacy and scientific safety standards had been undermined before Congress had finalised funding agency veterans say morale has plummeted. The layoffs, implemented in two waves throughout 2025, have triggered a chain reaction of resignations and retirements, with workers expressing concerns that crucial 'brain drain' is happening too quickly for any meaningful succession planning.'We are here because Nasa is under attack,' one protest leader declared, warning that the erosion of experience and oversight could imperil future missions and even astronaut safety. The departures come via the Deferred Resignation Program (DRP). (Photo: Reuters) Adding to frustrations, nearly 300 Nasa scientists and engineers have co-signed the 'Voyager Declaration,' an open letter protesting the funding cuts and organisational declaration cautions that the rapid personnel losses and elimination of critical programs could bring about 'irreparable damage,' particularly to Nasa's ability to pursue climate research, advanced aeronautics, and deep space assurances from the agency's leadership that safety and innovation remain priorities, those on the front lines say the mass departures and persistent uncertainty have left Nasa 'demoralised' and at a continue to call on US Congress to act swiftly, warning that America's preeminence in space and science is at stake.- Ends


Indian Express
26 minutes ago
- Indian Express
SC stays Calcutta HC order on West Bengal OBC list
The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the Calcutta High Court's decision that had stalled the implementation of a revised list of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) notified by the West Bengal government. 'Prima facie, the high court order seems to be erroneous,' said a bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria while hearing the appeal of the state government. On June 17, the Calcutta High Court ordered an interim stay on notifications issued by the state government with regard to reservations to 140 subsections under OBC-A and OBC-B categories made by it. At the outset, the bench took note of the submissions of senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the state government, and said, 'This is surprising. How can the High Court pass such an order? Reservation is part of the executive function.' The state had prepared the new list after the high court, in May 2024, quashed the inclusion of as many as 77 communities in the OBC list.

The Hindu
26 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court stays Calcutta HC order on West Bengal OBC list
The Supreme Court on Monday (July 28, 2025) stayed the Calcutta High Court's decision that had stalled the implementation of a revised list of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) notified by the West Bengal government. 'Prima facie, the High Court order seems to be erroneous,' said a Bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria while hearing the appeal of the State government. On June 17, the Calcutta High Court ordered an interim stay on notifications issued by the State government with regard to reservations to 140 subsections under OBC-A and OBC-B categories made by it. At the outset, the Bench took note of the submissions of senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the State government, and said, 'This is surprising. How can the High Court pass such an order? Reservation is part of the executive function." The State had prepared the new list after the High Court, in May 2024, quashed the inclusion of as many as 77 communities in the OBC list.