'Total disaster': Trump slams Obama appointed judge in Harvard case hearing; vows to appeal again if loses

Time of India

3 days ago

US President Donald Trump launched a attack on a federal judge presiding over a high-stakes legal battle between his administration and Harvard University, accusing her of bias and vowing to appeal in case of an unfavourable ruling.
Taking to his Truth Social platform, Trump wrote, 'The Harvard case was just tried in Massachusetts before an Obama appointed Judge. She is a TOTAL DISASTER, which I say even before hearing her Ruling. She has systematically taken over the various Harvard cases, and is an automatic 'loss' for the People of our Country!'
He went on to claim, 'Harvard has $52 Billion Dollars sitting in the Bank, and yet they are anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-America.
Much of this money comes from the U.S.A., all to the detriment of other Schools, Colleges, and Institutions, and we are not going to allow this unfair situation to happen any longer.'
Questioning how Judge Allison Burroughs came to oversee the matter, the US President further added, 'How did this Trump-hating Judge get these cases? When she rules against us, we will IMMEDIATELY appeal, and WIN.'
He also signalled a broader move to cut off federal support to the Ivy League institution, saying, 'The Government will stop the practice of giving many Billions of Dollars to Harvard, much of which had been given without explanation.
It is a longtime commitment to Fairness in Funding Education, and the Trump Administration will not stop until there is VICTORY.'
During a two-hour hearing on Monday, Judge Burroughs seemed doubtful of the administration's case and suggested that the IVY might prevail in the legal battle against the Trump administration. She didn't give a ruling but questioned the government's arguments as both sides asked for a quick decision, as per the New York Times.
In the hearing that took place in a Boston court, Burroughs questioned the justice department's efforts to cut off billions in medical research funding, pressing for explanations on how such funding withdrawal decisions were linked to civil rights of Jewish people.
She challenged the rationale behind the move, warning of 'staggering' constitutional implications if the executive branch could penalise a university without proper process.
'What I'm wrestling with is this idea that the executive branch can decide what is discriminatory or racist,' she said, 'these ad hoc decisions without any procedure around it.these ad hoc decisions without any procedure around it.'
The battle between the IVY and Trump administration that has lasted almost since his term in office. Harvard sued the Trump administration two months ago, alleging that the government violated its First Amendment rights by conditioning federal funding on the university's compliance with politically driven demands.
At the centre of the dispute is whether the administration bypassed established rules in a rush to defund the school.
Justice department lawyer Michael Velchik defended the administration's stance, arguing that the government has the authority to determine where taxpayer money goes.
But Harvard has rejected claims that it supports discrimination. Steven Lehotsky, representing the university, told the court the administration's actions were a 'blatant, unrepentant violation of the First Amendment.'
He also pointed out the government's departure from normal procedures in its attempt to punish Harvard.
Judge Burroughs also indicated that the case may hinge not only on constitutional principles but also on whether due process was followed.