
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


The Hindu
25 minutes ago
- The Hindu
‘Civil society globally did a fantastic job in supporting Gaza; but governments in West are evil'
After his two-storey house in Gaza was bombed in October 2023, allegedly by Israeli forces, Palestinian human rights lawyer Raji Sourani remains committed to returning to the war-torn strip; one of his first priorities, he says. In an exclusive interview, Mr. Sourani, who founded the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) in 1995, shares the current scenario of his and his organisation's efforts to prosecute Israel for 'genocide' at the International Court of Justice. Mr. Sournai, who is currently in Cairo, Egypt, expressed severe disappointment with Karim Khan, the chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Court (ICC), adding that Mr. Khan had 'failed' the people of Gaza. It is to note that, since 2015, Sourani has led the Palestinian legal team representing victims at the ICC. In a conversation with Al-Jazeera in April 2024, it was mentioned that you and a team of lawyers from the PCHR were working on prosecuting Israel for 'genocide' at the ICJ. Where does this stand in the present-day? The ICJ, as you know, is a court for the states. Since January 2015, we have been trying our best and have invested in making a case move at the ICC. But, there was an incredible amount of political pressure from the U.S., especially from the then Donald Trump-led administration. Penalties were warned on anyone who would try to bring the U.S. or Israel to the ICC, at any political level. This lasted till March 2021, when the ICC chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, decided to open an investigation. However, when Karim Khan took over as the new chief prosecutor of the ICC, he did not move anywhere. If I may interrupt, can you elaborate on why things did not move after Karim Khan took over? We do not know, but he was talking about restructuring the court, and the investigation into Palestine and budget deficits, among others. His priorities were very confusing to us, and he refused to meet us, even in principle, for a long period of time. When the October 7, 2023, attacks took place in Israel, we tried to meet Khan on numerous occasions. He already had the decision made by Fatou Bensouda to go ahead with the investigation. All Khan had to do was to ensure the investigation went ahead, but he did not do that. He continued to refuse a meeting with us, including with his investigative team. That is when we decided to think of the ICJ, and to open the dialogue channels with Ireland and South Africa, and the latter was open to the idea. We were lucky that South Africa…took over the case at the ICJ and challenged Israel while accusing the latter of the most serious crime of genocide. Coming back to Karim Khan, there has been recent news that he was reportedly warned to be 'destroyed', along with the ICC, if the arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant were not withdrawn. As a human rights lawyer, how do you perceive this? Despite the first Trump-led administration deciding that it would sanction anyone who tried to demand accountability [from the U.S. or Israel], Bensouda was incredibly courageous to challenge that. She formed the investigative body and had a meeting with us, and the investigation was simply supposed to proceed. We have documented war crimes dating back to 2014 – including crimes against humanity and persecution. However, after Khan took over, he refused to meet. It is very strange that a prosecutor, and his team, who cannot visit the place [Gaza], had no interest in meeting the lawyers who had documentation of the situation. Meanwhile, the war in Ukraine erupted. Soon after, he opened an office in Kyiv and began the investigation in Ukraine with 37 investigators. But, he did not move with respect to our file. We warned them [Khan and his team] after the October 7th attacks that there is obvious evidence of plans to carry out a genocide in Gaza. Still, they did not want to meet or listen. Only after making the case at the ICJ did Khan ask to meet us, and we were reluctant. I told Khan that he was partly responsible for the blood, pain and suffering of Gaza, after October 7th. Maybe if Khan had held any Israelis accountable, according to the files he had, then they [Israel] would not have thought of doing genocide. He promised to move forward, but only after he went to Israel and met the Israeli victims… Later, he delivered the arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant, but is that enough? These warrants are related to starvation and food, and not to genocide. Do you feel that Karim has failed you [and the people of Gaza]? Definitely. By waiting two years after taking over [to initiate action], he failed us… I do not want more than what he did for Ukraine. In one year, he had a warrant against Putin. I am damn sure that if Israel had been informed that they could be held accountable, they would have thought many times before doing what they are doing now… This is the most well-documented conflict in history, this is a genocide that was broadcast and live-streamed, and the world has been watching it? Speaking of war crimes, do you feel that the world and the media has turned its back on Gaza? I think the civil society, globally, did a fantastic job on [supporting] Gaza. I am very proud that the crème-de-la-crème of American universities and the generation of tomorrow stood fair, and they tried their best to voice the voiceless. They were able to speak truth to power. This includes people in London, Tokyo, Delhi and Paris, among others. It is obvious, the solidarity and support for Palestine. Our problem is not with the people…but the government's, in the U.S. and Europe, are evil. How can they support a criminal, belligerent occupation, and call a genocide a right to self-defence? I am appalled, the behaviour is selective. I also noticed that you were no longer based in Gaza, a place that you were not willing to leave at any cost. What made you leave Gaza? I did not leave Gaza willingly, my house was bombed. I have been a lawyer for the last 43 years, and one of my missions is to document these war crimes. I was checking whether the targeting against me was deliberate or not. My colleagues and I concluded that yes, this was deliberate. I was advised by my friends from across the world not to stay a minute longer in Gaza, because they believed that targeting was deliberate. They said that nobody will make use of you if you are dead. On the other hand, my wife and son refused to separate from me and leave for Egypt. At that time, it was 'mission impossible' to leave Gaza. But some friends intervened and got me out of there. For the first time, I feel that I am not in the right place [because I am away from Gaza]. You did mention that you had proper documentation of the alleged war crimes. Can you walk us through the testimonies of the victims, which you have gathered? We have had a real dilemma since the latest war broke out, because we never used to document anything partly. I can assure you that whether it's in 2008, 2009, 2012, 2014, 2017 and more, we have documented every war crime – crimes against humanity, persecution – in full. But, in this war, it was 'mission impossible' to document everything. Firstly, it was extremely dangerous, so I asked everyone in my team to stay home. We decided to do selective documentation, what that means is that we had to be selective in how many places we could cover. But wherever we covered, we did it in full. We documented attacks against shelters, UNRWA schools and hundreds of people have been killed, among many other war crimes. We have major samples on every type of crime that was committed. Do you ever plan to return to Gaza, given that there is an alleged threat to your life? Definitely, that is the first thing on my agenda. I am a deep-rooted Gazan, my family has lived in Gaza for the last seven centuries. I chose to be in Gaza, even when I was offered work in places across the world. I know that Gaza is not the most beautiful place in the world, but that is where I belong and feel my humanity. And there is a cause and case that I am working for. I have a team in Gaza, 45 of them, they continue to document starvation, bombings, killings and displacement. We have lost three of our staff members so far, and many of our staff members have also lost their family members… Not a for second will I comprise on returning to Gaza, no matter what the price will be.


India.com
25 minutes ago
- India.com
Trump Cozying Up To Pakistan – Will It Push India Closer To China?
New Delhi: A meeting in Washington last month between former U.S. President Donald Trump and Pakistan Field Marshal Asim Munir sparked concern in New Delhi. Just days earlier, a deadly terrorist attack in Pahalgam, South Kashmir, had killed 26 innocent civilians. India blamed Pakistan after a group linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba claimed responsibility. Foreign policy watchers are now weighing a critical question: could this renewed U.S.-Pakistan engagement unsettle India's fragile equation with China? For years, Beijing has served as the strategic common threat binding India and the United States. Both nations view China as a geopolitical rival and have steadily expanded cooperation to counter its influence. But Trump's warm overtures toward China-backed Pakistan are forcing India to rethink its calculus. Diplomatic experts say India is unlikely to pivot dramatically toward China based solely on the Trump-Munir meeting. Moves to de-escalate tensions with Beijing had already been set in motion months earlier. Still, the symbolism of the meeting and its implications for India's long-term strategy are difficult to ignore. Michael Kugelman, director of the South Asia Institute at the Wilson Center in Washington D.C., said the meeting must be viewed in light of recent India-Pakistan military flare-ups during Operation Sindoor. 'It is not that India is suddenly leaning toward China because of Trump's outreach to Pakistan. But the context matters, especially given that Pakistan used Chinese weapons against India for the first time during that conflict,' he explained. He added that uncertainty around U.S.-India ties under Trump remains a major concern in New Delhi. 'There is no clear indication of how Trump plans to deal with China. At times, he talks tough, at others, he calls for cooperation. India is wary of assuming that the United States will always align with its strategic interests on China.' That ambiguity, Kugelman said, is one reason India has begun hedging its bets by stabilising ties with Beijing. A Subtle Thaw Between India and China Since October 2024, signs of a diplomatic thaw have emerged. Border troops from both sides have started withdrawing from several flashpoints along the disputed Line of Actual Control (LAC). Earlier this month, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar met Chinese President Xi Jinping during the SCO foreign ministers' summit, marking his first visit to Beijing in six years. Direct commercial flights between India and China are set to resume. The long-suspended Kailash Mansarovar Yatra has reopened for Indian pilgrims. In a move with economic implications, the government think tank NITI Aayog has proposed allowing up to 24% Chinese equity in Indian companies without special clearance. Foreign policy commentator Indrani Bagchi believes India is proceeding cautiously. 'The government is trying to introduce a degree of stability into its relationship with China. We may see some Chinese investment flowing in, but it's unlikely to go much beyond that,' she said. She also warned against overreacting to Trump's overtures to Pakistan. 'This is not the first time Washington has leaned toward Islamabad. Whenever it does, the trust factor in U.S.-India ties takes a hit. If the United States resumes military aid to Pakistan, it will definitely raise red flags in New Delhi,' she added. At the same time, she noted, India has been attempting to diversify its defense partnerships, gradually reducing dependence on Russia and increasing procurement from the United States. 'If America is using Pakistan as a bridge to reach China, India will be forced to reassess,' she added. What Is Beijing's Game? Some former diplomats argue that if India extends a hand, China will likely respond with caution but openness. Achal Malhotra, a former ambassador, said New Delhi's foreign policy is guided by realism, not alignment. 'Our relations with China stand on their own merit. We are prudent but sovereign in our choices. The United States knows this. Trump's meeting with Munir likely reflects Pakistan's geographic utility in Afghanistan and Central Asia. Unless that directly threatens India, it is not an alarming development,' he said. Strategic analyst Zakir Hussain suggested it is U.S. inconsistency that might be nudging India toward China. 'The way Washington handles its ties with India is part of the reason New Delhi may explore a less confrontational path with Beijing. Economically, some of India's moves may lower tensions. But let us be clear that China will never abandon Pakistan for India,' he said.


Time of India
38 minutes ago
- Time of India
Shivakumar vows to resume Mahadayiwork, dares Goa govt to block it
Bengaluru: Deputy CM DK Shivakumar on Thursday announced that Karnataka would resume the long-stalled Kalasa-Banduri project, brushing aside objections from both the Goa govt and the Centre. "We will withdraw our application from the Supreme Court and resume the work. I will see who stops it," Shivakumar said, responding to Goa chief minister Pramod Sawant's claim that the Centre would not issue environmental clearance for the project. He also asserted Karnataka's right over its share of Mahadayi waters and said tenders had already been floated based on the Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal's verdict. The Kalasa-Banduri project, which involves the construction of two dams across the Kalasa and Banduri tributaries of the Mahadayi river and a canal to carry water to the Malaprabha reservoir, has remained in limbo since 2006-07. The project was first launched during the JD(S)-BJP coalition regime under then CM BS Yeddyurappa and water resources minister KS Eshwarappa, but work was halted after Goa moved the Supreme Court seeking a stay. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Swelling and internal bleeding in the brain, help this baby Donate For Health Donate Now Undo You Can Also Check: Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru Shivakumar accused Sawant of disregarding the federal system and also took aim at Karnataka's MPs for remaining silent. "It is wrong on the part of the state MPs not to raise their voice on this issue. We can't sell our state just for one MP from Goa. I urge the MPs from the state to put pressure on the Centre," he said. "This is a matter of self-respect for the state. I will meet all the MPs from the state and seek their support. " Clarifying that his criticism was aimed at the Goa govt and not the Centre, he said: "The union jal shakti minister is impartial on the matter, he won't do politics on this. I have met him four or five times. The union environment minister will also not do politics on this issue. Both of them support development works. The issue is with Goa." He further stated that a delegation of Karnataka MPs would soon be formed to meet prime minister Narendra Modi and central ministers. Chief minister Siddaramaiah also launched a scathing attack on the Centre, accusing it of sabotaging the project. "Despite the 2018 tribunal verdict allocating 13.4 tmcft of water to us, the Centre, hand in glove with Goa's BJP govt, is blocking the implementation of our rightful project. This project will quench the thirst of over 40 lakh people in Belagavi, Dharwad, Gadag, Bagalkot and nearby regions. It is a lifeline, not a bargaining chip. We will fight legally, politically, and morally until Karnataka gets its rightful share," he wrote on X. —— Photo caption: P4-Mahadayi Caught in dispute: The Kalasa-Banduri project, which involves the construction of two dams and a canal, has remained in limbo since 2006-07