Why Judge Burroughs's skepticism marks a turning point in the US-Harvard funding clash
A federal court hearing on the lawsuit between Harvard University and the US government over a $2.6 billion funding freeze saw pointed questioning from United States District Judge Allison D.
Burroughs, casting doubt on the administration's justification for the freeze. The case, which could determine the future of Harvard's research funding, centers on allegations that the university failed to address antisemitism on campus.
At the hearing held in a packed courtroom in Boston, Burroughs pressed government attorney Michael K. Velchik on how the administration's decision to halt billions in research funding was tied to its stated goal of combating antisemitism at Harvard.
The lawsuit has become a central point in a broader legal and political standoff between Harvard and President Donald J. Trump's administration, which has accused the university of permitting antisemitism and failing to uphold civil rights protections.
Judge questions link between speech and research funding
According to The Harvard Crimson, Judge Burroughs said during the hearing, "They're not funding speech, they're funding research.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
A genetic disorder that is damaging his organs. Help my son
Donate For Health
Donate Now
Undo
And you're tying that research to speech." She expressed skepticism about whether concerns about antisemitism could justify such steep funding cuts to the university's research enterprise. Velchik, representing the government, argued that the cuts were in response to pro-Palestine protests and incidents including the vandalism of the John Harvard statue after the October 7 Hamas attacks on Israel.
Velchik also said that the government was responding to complaints from students, donors, and law enforcement, and asserted that federal agencies had the right to redirect funds when grantee goals no longer aligned with government priorities.
As reported by The Harvard Crimson, Burroughs responded that such a justification would allow the government to cancel grants "even if their termination violated the Constitution," calling the implications "staggering.
"
Harvard accuses the administration of First Amendment violations
Harvard's legal team described the Trump administration's actions as unconstitutional. Steven P. Lehotsky, a lawyer for Harvard, argued that the government's funding freeze was "a blatant, unrepentant violation of the First Amendment," as quoted by The Harvard Crimson.
The university has claimed the funding freeze was retaliatory, tied to its refusal to accept policy changes demanded by the administration.
Funding freeze follows administration demands
The funding freeze followed an April 11 letter from the government, mistakenly sent to Harvard leadership, which outlined a series of demands. These included external audits of academic departments, changes to hiring and admissions practices, elimination of diversity programs, and regular compliance reports.
Harvard President Alan M. Garber rejected the demands, calling them "assertions of power, unmoored by the law, to control teaching and learning at Harvard," as reported by The Harvard Crimson.
Wider impact on research and student access
The freeze has affected research projects across the university, including work on cancer treatments and other scientific initiatives. Harvard has implemented cost-cutting measures, layoffs, and hiring freezes.
It has also sued the Trump administration a second time over visa restrictions and access to a federal database, which affected international student enrollment.
Next steps in the lawsuit
Judge Burroughs has not issued a final ruling but said a decision would come quickly. Harvard has requested a ruling by September 3, the government's deadline for submitting grant termination paperwork, as reported by The Harvard Crimson. Although settlement talks are ongoing, Harvard's faculty association, the American Association of University Professors, has requested to continue its separate legal challenge in case Harvard reaches an agreement before a final ruling is made.
TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us
here
.
Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
8 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Harvard University under fire as US Congressional probe exposes deep ties to Chinese Communist Party
Harvard University, once revered as a bastion of academic excellence and intellectual freedom, is now facing a growing scandal that threatens its reputation and integrity. A congressional investigation has revealed that the Ivy League institution maintained formal partnerships with Chinese Communist Party (CCP)-controlled entities for over a decade, relationships that critics say directly assisted in the training of future CCP leadership. According to a letter obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, Reps. John Moolenaar (R-MI), Tim Walberg (R-MI), and Elise Stefanik (R-NY) accused Harvard of actively collaborating with organisations under the control of the CCP's Central Organisation Department. This department is responsible for indoctrinating officials with "Xi Jinping Thought" and selecting leaders for key positions within China's authoritarian regime. Of particular concern is the Harvard Kennedy School's long-standing cooperation with the Chinese Executive Leadership Academy Pudong, an institution controlled by the CCP. Whistleblower testimony indicates that cadres from China's party and government institutions were sent to Harvard as part of their official training, raising alarms about foreign influence on American soil. "Harvard's formal partnership with a CCP-controlled school to train their future leaders raises serious concerns about the CCP's influence in American institutions," said Rep. Moolenaar. "We are committed to uncovering the full extent of these relationships to ensure transparency and protect national interests." The revelations come at a time when Harvard is already under scrutiny. The university is reportedly considering a USD 500 million payout to resolve a standoff with the Biden administration over campus anti-Semitism complaints and controversial DEI policies. But lawmakers argue that financial settlements cannot undo the damage caused by Harvard's entanglement with entities implicated in human rights abuses. In April, The Free Beacon exposed Harvard's past training of members from the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, a CCP paramilitary group sanctioned by the U.S. for its role in the genocide of Uyghur Muslims. That report prompted congressional leaders to threaten Harvard's tax-exempt Harvard faces a deadline of August 7 to provide Congress with all records relating to its interactions with CCP-affiliated bodies, including any financial or material pressure mounts, the question isn't just whether Harvard broke federal laws or ethical boundaries, but whether one of America's most prestigious universities has willingly served the interests of a foreign authoritarian power.
Time of India
39 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump tariff threat: No order for refiners from India to stop Russian oil imports despite US pressure, claims report
India has not issued any directive to its oil refiners to halt purchases of Russian crude, Bloomberg reported, citing people familiar with the matter. The decision comes as the Indian government navigates its energy security needs while managing diplomatic ties with Moscow and avoiding further tensions with US President Donald Trump. According to Bloomberg sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the issue, no official decision has been made to stop imports from Russia. Both state-run and private refiners continue to source oil based on commercial considerations, and are permitted to buy from suppliers of their choice. The clarification follows Trump's criticism of India on Wednesday for relying heavily on Russian energy and defence equipment. The US President imposed an unexpected 25 percent tariff on Indian goods and threatened further penalties due to India's close ties with Moscow. He later told reporters that he 'heard' India would stop purchasing Russian oil, describing it as 'a good step.' India has consistently maintained that its energy purchases are dictated by market conditions and pricing. Last week, according to Bloomberg, refiners were asked to draft contingency plans for procuring non-Russian crude, should the need arise. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Susan Boyle Is Now so Thin and Looks Beautiful! Undo Officials reportedly asked state-owned processors to explore alternate sourcing options and estimate volumes that could replace Russian imports, describing it as scenario planning. Despite this, The New York Times reported on Saturday that India will continue to buy Russian crude even under the threat of penalties from the US, citing two unnamed senior Indian officials. India has become the largest buyer of Russian seaborne crude exports since the Ukraine conflict began, increasing its share from near zero to about one-third of total imports. This has drawn criticism from both the US and the European Union, which view the purchases as indirect support for Moscow's war effort. Reducing or halting Russian oil imports would likely force India to return to sourcing crude from Gulf producers at higher prices, a move that could increase the country's energy import bill, one of the sources told Bloomberg. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has maintained a close relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, visiting Moscow in October. Putin is also expected to travel to India later this year. In the meantime, state-owned Indian Oil Corp. has purchased at least 5 million barrels of US crude and an additional 2 million barrels from Abu Dhabi for near-term delivery, traders told Bloomberg. Stay informed with the latest business news, updates on bank holidays and public holidays . Discover stories of India's leading eco-innovators at Ecopreneur Honours 2025
Time of India
42 minutes ago
- Time of India
'Alarming, illegal': Chidambaram flags voter shifts; questions EC over migrant inclusion in TN, mass deletions in Bihar
P Chidambaram (ANI) NEW DELHI: Senior Congress leader P Chidambaram on Sunday slammed the Election Commission of India (ECI) for adding approximately 6.5 lakh 'migrant workers' to the electoral roll of Tamil Nadu, while around 65 lakh people were termed 'permanently migrated' and were removed from Bihar's voter list. He called the move under the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise 'alarming' and 'patently illegal,' describing it as an abuse of power by the poll body, which must be 'fought politically and legally.' In a series of posts on social media platform X, the former home minister asked, how did the ECI determine that lakhs of individuals listed in Bihar's current electoral rolls should be removed for 'permanently migrating' out of the state? He further added, before reaching any such conclusion, a thorough investigation must be done on a case-by-case basis. How can any such enquiry be conducted in a duration of 30 days involving over 37 lakh people? Chidambaram wrote: "Every Indian has a right to live and work in any state where he has a permanent home. That is obvious and right. How did the ECI come to the conclusion that several lakh persons, whose names are in the current electoral rolls of Bihar, must be excluded because they had 'permanently migrated' out of the state? That is the question. Before you reach the conclusion that a person has 'permanently migrated' out of a state, should not a thorough enquiry be conducted into each case? How could such an enquiry involving 37 lakh persons have been conducted in a period of 30 days? Mass disenfranchisement is a serious issue, and that is why the Supreme Court is hearing the petitions. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Libas Purple Days Sale Libas Undo " On the addition of migrant workers to the electoral roll of Tamil Nadu, the Congress veteran questioned why the migrants shouldn't go back to their states for voting, drawing an analogy with people returning to Bihar for festivals like 'Chhath Puja.' He wrote, 'Why should the migrant worker not return to Bihar (or his/her home state) to vote in the State Assembly election, as they usually do? Does not the migrant worker return to Bihar at the time of the Chhath Puja festival?' The senior leader said calling them "permanently migrated" is an insult to the migrant workers and a gross interference in the right of the electorate of Tamil Nadu to elect a government of its choice. The former Union minister also asked how people with a legal home in Bihar were registered as voters in Tamil Nadu. 'A person to be enrolled as a voter must have a fixed and permanent legal home. The migrant worker has such a home in Bihar (or another state). How can he/she be enrolled as a voter in Tamil Nadu? If the migrant worker's family has a permanent home in Bihar and lives in Bihar, how can the migrant worker be considered as 'permanently migrated' to Tamil Nadu?' the post added on X. Chidambaram accused the Election Commission of overstepping its authority. "The ECI is abusing its powers and trying to change the electoral character and patterns of states. This abuse of powers must be fought politically and legally @CMOTamilnadu," he added.
