Latest news with #AmericanAssociationofUniversityProfessors
Mint
2 days ago
- Politics
- Mint
Trump cracked down on campus protesters. A court will decide how far he can go.
President Trump's immigration-enforcement tactics have been defined by a muscular use of executive power with little precedent. Now, a federal judge is tasked with deciding whether to curtail that approach against foreigners in the U.S. legally. U.S. District Judge William Young in Boston wrapped up a closely watched trial this week on the administration's targeting of international students engaged in campus activism. Following a series of high-profile arrests of pro-Palestinian protesters, faculty groups are pressing a broad legal effort to head off similar future arrests. The litigation taps into rarely explored legal tensions between the government's latitude to set the terms for foreigners living legally in the U.S. and the rights of those residents while they are here. Two weeks of testimony, including from government witnesses, offered a rare public window into the extraordinary measures the administration has taken against immigrants at elite universities. The challengers, led by the American Association of University Professors, say the administration's efforts to revoke green cards and visas from pro-Palestinian campus activists amount to proof of a policy of 'ideological deportation" that has terrified noncitizens in higher education and chilled their speech. 'It is stifling dissent," said Alexandra Conlon, a lawyer for the academics, in closing arguments on Monday. 'That is the goal." Lawyers for the administration say there is no such policy. They also say that the government has long held far-reaching power to order the removal of noncitizens to protect the foreign-policy interests of the U.S. and that Secretary of State Marco Rubio is using it lawfully now. Foreigners in the U.S. don't have the same protections as Americans when it comes to protesting, the Justice Department says. 'The answer to the question of whether aliens and citizens have equivalent rights under the First Amendment is no, they're not equivalent," Justice Department lawyer Ethan Kanter said in the government's closing presentation. Government witnesses testified that a 'tiger team" at the Department of Homeland Security was given a list of 5,000 protesters to examine, most of whose names were taken from the website Canary Mission, which claims it 'documents people and groups that promote hatred of the USA, Israel and Jews." That team, which included analysts reassigned from counterterrorism intelligence work, produced around 200 reports on protesters to send to the State Department for Rubio to consider, said a DHS official, Peter Hatch. Hatch said some of those reports were created about international students who attended protests but weren't suspected of having committed a crime. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents involved in some of the arrests testified that in decadeslong careers they had never seen the government attempt to deport anyone on the order of the secretary of state, or under similar circumstances. Government lawyers argued throughout the trial that the administration wasn't mounting a campaign to target international students or professors because of their political viewpoints. But government witnesses also testified about the administration's willingness to order the deportation of people largely on the basis of what it considers to be antisemitic speech that is at odds with U.S. foreign-policy interests. The judge, a Reagan appointee, has offered several observations that suggested skepticism of the government's position. For example, Young said, 'criticisms of the state of Israel aren't antisemitism, they're political speech, protected speech," and added that he didn't see criticism of the state of Israel as tantamount to support for Hamas either. He also expressed concern over immigration agents' use of masks, saying that a common-sense inference was that this was intended to spread fear. A handful of noncitizen faculty testified to experiencing panic after government efforts to deport Columbia University students and green-card holders Mahmoud Khalil and Mohsen Mahdawi, along with Yunseo Chung, a lawful permanent resident who has been in the U.S. since she was 7 years old. Often mentioned, too, was the arrest of Rumeysa Ozturk, a student visa holder at Tufts University. In each of those cases, judges have sided with the students and criticized the government's actions as overreach—though Khalil, Mahdawi and Ozturk each spent weeks in detention before being freed. Nadje Al-Ali, an anthropology professor at Brown and director of its Center for Middle East Studies until 2024, testified that she had flown to visit her mother in a care home in Germany, and heard soon after landing that Khalil had been taken into detention. She recalled thinking, 'Oh, my God, I just left the country. What's going to happen when I get back?" She said she returned earlier than she had planned from Europe, contacted an immigration lawyer to keep in touch with her as she re-entered the U.S., and carefully curated her social media so that it was 'all dogs, cats and recipes." Justice Department lawyers pointed out that none of the academics who testified had been contacted by government officials about their activities or political views, and that Al-Ali hadn't been detained at Boston's Logan airport on her return and hadn't been subject to more than cursory questioning. Young's decision is expected in the coming weeks. Write to Louise Radnofsky at
Yomiuri Shimbun
3 days ago
- Politics
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Harvard Slams Trump Administration Funding Cuts in Pivotal Court Hearing
BOSTON – Attorneys for the nation's oldest university said Monday that the Trump administration's reasons for withholding billions in federal funding were 'cooked up,' and unconstitutional, sparring with the government during a key hearing in a legal battle that could determine whether the president's attacks on higher education will stand. A federal judge heard arguments from a team of attorneys for Harvard University and its chapter of the American Association of University Professors and from a lawyer for the federal government, peppering them with questions as Harvard cast its arguments as a First Amendment case and the government sought to frame it as simply a dispute over money and contracts. The hearing marked a pivotal moment in the fight between Harvard and the Trump administration in an unprecedented case that is being watched by all of higher education. Harvard has challenged the administration's move to slash billions of dollars in federal funding with critical scientific research and the autonomy of the nearly 400-year-old university on the line. The administration's lawyer said the government froze the funding because the school had not done enough to combat antisemitism. Both sides had asked the judge to issue a ruling in the case without a trial, but U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs ended the hearing without rendering a decision. Burroughs acknowledged that both sides want a rapid resolution; Harvard, in particular, has pleaded urgency in hopes that the funding terminations will not become final. Steven P. Lehotsky, who argued for Harvard, called the government's actions a blatant, unrepentant violation of the First Amendment, touching a 'constitutional third rail' that threatened the academic freedom of private universities. The lone attorney for the government cast the case as a fight over billions of dollars. 'Harvard is here because it wants the money,' said Michael Velchik, a Justice Department lawyer. But the government can choke the flow of taxpayer dollars to institutions that show a 'deliberate indifference to antisemitism,' he said. President Donald Trump reacted to the hearing Monday afternoon with a post on social media about the judge. 'She is a TOTAL DISASTER, which I say even before hearing her Ruling.' He called Harvard 'anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-America.' 'How did this Trump-hating Judge get these cases? When she rules against us, we will IMMEDIATELY appeal, and WIN. Also, the Government will stop the practice of giving many Billions of Dollars to Harvard,' he said. Spokespeople for Harvard did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday about the president's remarks. Peter McDonough, vice president and general counsel at the American Council on Education, said all of higher education could be impacted by the case. 'And I don't think it is too dramatic to say that Americans and the constitutional protections that they value are in court,' he said. 'Freedom of speech is on trial, due process is on trial,' he said, with the executive branch of the government essentially charged with having violated those rights. The administration has engaged in intense efforts to force changes in higher education, which it has said has been captured by leftist ideology and has not done enough to combat antisemitism in the wake of protests at some colleges over the Israel-Gaza war. Its biggest target has been Harvard. The administration announced earlier this year that it would review nearly $9 billion in federal funding to the school and its affiliates, including local hospitals whose physicians teach at Harvard Medical School. In April, a letter from a federal antisemitism task force, alluding to civil rights law, demanded that the university upend its governance, hiring, student discipline and admissions, and submit to years-long federal oversight over multiple aspects of its operations. Harvard refused to comply. Hours later, the administration announced it would freeze more than $2 billion in federal research grants to Harvard. It has also launched multiple investigations into the Ivy League institution's operations, threatened to revoke the school's tax-exempt status, and moved to block its ability to enroll international students. Harvard filed a lawsuit challenging the funding cuts, and later filed another to counter the administration's effort to block international students and scholars from Harvard. In the latter case, Burroughs twice ruled swiftly in Harvard's favor, allowing the university to continue welcoming non-U.S. students while the case proceeds. On Monday, Harvard's lawyers argued that the government violated the school's First Amendment rights and ignored the requirements of federal civil rights law, and that its actions were unlawfully arbitrary and capricious. Any claim that Harvard is simply interested in getting money back is 'just false,' Lehotsky said. 'We're here for our constitutional rights.' He called the government's actions an end-run around Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and compared it to the scene in 'Alice in Wonderland' in which the queen orders that the sentence comes first then the verdict afterward, with the funding freeze preceding the investigation required by statute. 'The government now says Title VI is totally irrelevant,' he said, arguing it had cooked up a post hoc rationale. Harvard had asked the judge to grant a summary judgment, set aside the funding freezes and terminations, and block any similar actions as soon as possible before Sept. 3, after which the university believes the government will take the position that restoration of the funds is not possible. Velchik, the Justice Department attorney – himself a Harvard alumnus – defended the government's decisions to slash the university's funding in response to what he said was its failure to tackle antisemitism. 'Harvard does not have a monopoly on the truth,' he said. Those same funds would be 'better spent going to HBCUs or community colleges.' The government canceled the grants under an obscure regulation that allows it to terminate funding when they no longer align with agency priorities. 'Harvard should have read the fine print,' Velchik said. Although Burroughs pushed both sides to justify their arguments, she appeared skeptical of the administration's rationale for the cuts. She repeatedly pressed the government on what process it had followed in deciding to terminate a major portion of Harvard's federal funding. 'This is a big stumbling block for me,' she said, even as she acknowledged the government had argued some of its points well. (A 'Harvard education is paying off for you,' she told Velchik.) Burroughs noted that the government had apparently slashed Harvard's funding without following any established procedure or even examining the steps Harvard itself had taken to combat antisemitism. If the administration can base its decision on reasons connected to protected speech, Burroughs said, the consequences for 'constitutional law are staggering.' At one point, Velchik appeared to grow emotional. He spoke about wanting to go to Harvard since he was a child, then seeing the campus 'besieged by protesters' and hearing about Jewish students wearing baseball caps to hide their kippot, a visible sign of their identity. 'It's sick. Federal taxpayers should not support this,' he said. Burroughs also spoke about the case in unusually personal terms. 'I am both Jewish and American,' she said. Harvard itself has acknowledged antisemitism as an issue, she said. But 'what is the connection to cutting off funding to Alzheimer's or cancer research?' she asked. 'One could argue it hurts Americans and Jews.' A complaint by Harvard's chapter of the American Association of University Professors against the administration, filed before the university took action, is being heard concurrently with Harvard's case. In its court filings, the Justice Department urged Burroughs to reject Harvard's request for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a motion in which a party in a civil suit asks a judge to decide a case before it goes to trial. To win a summary judgment, the party filing the motion must show there is no genuine dispute over the central facts of the case and they would prevail on the legal merits if the case were to go to trial. Harvard supporters, with crimson colored shirts, signs and hats along with American flag pins, crowded around the main entrance of the John Joseph Moakley federal courthouse Monday afternoon. About 100 alumni, faculty, staff and students rallied in a joint protest with the Crimson Courage alumni group and supporters of the American Association of University Professors union. 'What the federal administration is doing is basically co-opting American values for their own political ends, and we are determined to say this is not what America is about,' said Evelyn J. Kim, a co-chair of the Crimson Courage communications team and a 1995 Harvard graduate. 'America is about the values that allow for Harvard to exist.' Walter Willett, 80, a professor of epidemiology and nutrition at Harvard's T.H. Chan School of Public Health, biked to the rally to deliver a speech to the group. In May, $3.6 million of National Institutes of Health grant money that funded Willett's research on breast cancer and women's and men's health was cut, he said. It is critical to push back against the administration, Willett said. 'In this case, our basic freedom – what we're fighting for – is also at stake.' The stakes are high – and not just for Harvard. More than a dozen amicus briefs filed in support of Harvard argue that the administration is imperiling academic freedom, the autonomy of institutions of higher education and the decades-long research partnership between universities and the federal government. Eighteen former officials who served in past Democratic and Republican administrations noted in a brief that they were aware of no instances in more than 40 years where federal funds had been terminated under Title VI, the provision of civil rights law that Trump officials have in some cases cited in slashing Harvard's grants. The administration received outside support in a brief filed by the attorneys general of 16 states, led by Iowa. 'There are apparently three constant truths in American life: death, taxes, and Harvard University's discrimination against Jews,' it said, citing Harvard's own internal report on antisemitism on campus. Harvard has taken numerous steps to address antisemitism after protests over the Israel-Gaza war in the 2023-2024 academic year sparked concerns from some Jewish and Israeli students, but the administration has repeatedly said the problem persists and must be acted upon forcefully. James McAffrey, 22, a senior and first-generation college student from Oklahoma, co-chairs the Harvard Students for Freedom, a student group that joined the rally Monday to support the school. He said the administration's actions pose a threat to the nation's well-being. 'I think the reality is it's time for us to root out the evils of anti-Americanism in the Trump administration,' he said.
Boston Globe
4 days ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Harvard is hoping court rules Trump administration's $2.6b research cuts were illegal
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up A second lawsuit over the cuts filed by the American Association of University Professors and its Harvard faculty chapter has been consolidated with the university's. Advertisement Harvard's lawsuit accuses President Donald Trump's administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university after it rejected a series of demands in an April 11 letter from a federal antisemitism task force. The letter demanded sweeping changes related to campus protests, academics and admissions. For example, the letter told Harvard to audit the viewpoints of students and faculty and admit more students or hire new professors if the campus was found to lack diverse points of view. The letter was meant to address government accusations that the university had become a hotbed of liberalism and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment on campus. Advertisement Harvard President Alan Garber pledged to fight antisemitism but said no government 'should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.' The same day Harvard rejected the demands, Trump officials moved to freeze $2.2 billion in research grants. Education Secretary Linda McMahon declared in May that Harvard would no longer be eligible for new grants, and weeks later the administration began canceling contracts with Harvard. As Harvard fought the funding freeze in court, individual agencies began sending letters announcing that the frozen research grants were being terminated. They cited a clause that allows grants to be scrapped if they no longer align with government policies. Harvard, which has the nation's largest endowment at $53 billion, has moved to self-fund some of its research, but warned it can't absorb the full cost of the federal cuts. In court filings, the school said the government 'fails to explain how the termination of funding for research to treat cancer, support veterans, and improve national security addresses antisemitism.' The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, saying the grants were under review even before the April demand letter was sent. It argues the government has wide discretion to cancel contracts for policy reasons. 'It is the policy of the United States under the Trump Administration not to fund institutions that fail to adequately address antisemitism in their programs,' it said in court documents. The research funding is only one front in Harvard's fight with the federal government. The Trump administration also has sought to prevent the school from hosting foreign students, and Trump has threatened to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status. Advertisement Finally, last month, the Trump administration formally issued a finding that the school tolerated antisemitism — a step that eventually could jeopardize all of Harvard's federal funding, including federal student loans or grants. The penalty is typically referred to as a 'death sentence.'
The Guardian
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Harvard heads to court to argue Trump administration's $2.6bn in cuts were illegal
Harvard University will appear in federal court Monday to make the case that the Trump administration illegally cut $2.6bn from the storied college – a pivotal moment in its battle against the federal government. If US district Judge Allison Burroughs decides in the university's favor, the ruling would reverse a series of funding freezes that later became outright cuts as the Trump administration escalated its fight with the nation's oldest and wealthiest university. Such a ruling, if it stands, would revive Harvard's sprawling scientific and medical research operation and hundreds of projects that lost federal money. 'This case involves the government's efforts to use the withholding of federal funding as leverage to gain control of academic decisionmaking at Harvard,' the university said in its complaint. 'All told, the tradeoff put to Harvard and other universities is clear: allow the government to micromanage your academic institution or jeopardize the institution's ability to pursue medical breakthroughs, scientific discoveries, and innovative solutions.' A second lawsuit over the cuts filed by the American Association of University Professors and its Harvard faculty chapter has been consolidated with the university's. Harvard's lawsuit accuses Donald Trump's administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university after it rejected a series of demands in an 11 April letter from a federal antisemitism task force. The letter demanded sweeping changes related to campus protests, academics and admissions. For example, the letter told Harvard to audit the viewpoints of students and faculty and admit more students or hire new professors if the campus was found to lack diverse points of view. The letter was meant to address government accusations that the university had become a hotbed of liberalism and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment on campus. Alan Garber, Harvard's president, pledged to fight antisemitism but said no government 'should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue'. The same day Harvard rejected the demands, Trump officials moved to freeze $2.2bn in research grants. Linda McMahon, the US education secretary, declared in May that Harvard would no longer be eligible for new grants, and weeks later the administration began canceling contracts with Harvard. As Harvard fought the funding freeze in court, individual agencies began sending letters announcing that the frozen research grants were being terminated. They cited a clause that allows grants to be scrapped if they no longer align with government policies. Harvard, which has the nation's largest endowment at $53bn, has moved to self-fund some of its research, but warned it can't absorb the full cost of the federal cuts. In court filings, the school said the government 'fails to explain how the termination of funding for research to treat cancer, support veterans, and improve national security addresses antisemitism'. The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, saying the grants were under review even before the April demand letter was sent. It argues the government has wide discretion to cancel contracts for policy reasons. 'It is the policy of the United States under the Trump administration not to fund institutions that fail to adequately address antisemitism in their programs,' it said in court documents. The research funding is only one front in Harvard's fight with the federal government. The Trump administration also has sought to prevent the school from hosting foreign students, and Trump has threatened to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status. Finally, last month, the Trump administration formally issued a finding that the school tolerated antisemitism – a step that eventually could jeopardize all of Harvard's federal funding, including federal student loans or grants. The penalty is typically referred to as a 'death sentence'.
Boston Globe
15-07-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
In court testimony, Boston ICE official recalls pressure from above to arrest Rümeysa Öztürk
'We made it a priority,' Cunningham said. He also testified that, in the months after President Trump was inaugurated in January, Homeland Security Investigations has been prioritizing immigration arrests more than before, and that 'the prioritization of that work has certainly increased.' The testimony took place during the seventh day of trial in a lawsuit brought by higher education organizations, including the American Association of University Professors, over the Trump administration's policies of arresting and detaining noncitizen students and others engaged in pro-Palestinian activism. Advertisement Öztürk was US District Judge William G. Young will decide whether the lawsuit plaintiffs proved their claims that the administration's effort to revoke the visas of pro-Palestinian protesters and deport them is a violation of their First Amendment rights and the Administrative Procedure Act. Advertisement In court on Tuesday, multiple top ICE officials from the Boston, New England, New York and Washington D.C. offices of Homeland Security Investigations said that in the past six months under Trump, they were told to prioritize immigration enforcement cases, as opposed to criminal cases, which they had previously focused on in the past. Cunningham acknowledged that prior to this change, he largely had no experience with these kinds of cases. Cunningham consulted with an attorney from ICE's Office of the Principal Legal Advisor prior to Öztürk's arrest, to make sure that the agency was on 'solid legal ground' in the operation, he said. Last week, Peter Hatch, an assistant director of an ICE intelligence office, testified that analysts were directed to look at a pro-Israel website for leads on investigating protesters because it contained more than 5,000 names of people who publicly supported the Palestinian cause. The team looking into the protesters was internally referred to as Tiger Team, Hatch said. Hatch disclosed that the agency An attorney for the plaintiffs displayed in court a report on Öztürk, titled 'Report of Analysis,' which was ICE's subject profile of Öztürk. It was the first time the report, which was only partially unveiled, had been disclosed. Advertisement On Tuesday, Cunningham, who said he supervised Öztürk's arrest, told the court that he received an email which included a memo from the Department of State as an attachment, which said that Öztürk's visa had been revoked. The email also included a copy of an op-ed Öztürk co-wrote in the student newspaper calling on Tufts to divest from companies with ties to Israel. He could not remember receiving a similar communication in his time at HSI, he testified. He said that 'there were a lot of hands in fishbowl' in planning for and carrying out the arrest. In response to questions, Cunningham said he did not see anything in the op-ed that indicated evidence of a crime. Michael Tremonte, an attorney for the plaintiffs, asked Cunningham if there had been a decision made by top officials to keep Öztürk's visa's revocation a secret from her. 'We did not plan on alerting her to the fact that her visa had been revoked,' Cunningham responded. On Friday, John Armstrong, a top official in the Bureau of Consular Affairs, which is part of the state department, also testified that Öztürk was not informed that her visa was being revoked, on guidance from ICE officials. 'ICE had made a request that we not inform so that they could take action to remove Ms. Öztürk from the United States,' Armstrong said. Armstrong said that the state department typically lets visa holders know that their visa is being revoked. Cunningham testified that he was the agent who signed the arrest warrant for ICE to ultimately apprehend Öztürk, and that the cause for her arrest was her visa revocation. which would make her in violation of immigration law. Advertisement During Cuningham's testimony, Young, the judge, noted that 'not everyone who has their visa revoked is arrested.' 'I don't think it's at issue whether there was legal authority to take Ms. Öztürk into custody,' Young said. 'The question is a broader question as to the reasons for all that.' Young said that he was in possession of various documents related to Öztürk's arrest, but that he could not share them with the plaintiffs — along with some documents related to other arrests of students by ICE — because a federal appeals court has ordered they remain sealed, while weighing a petition by the government to declare them privileged information. On Tuesday, several other ICE agents who were involved in the arrests of students who had expressed Pro-Palestinian views testified, including agents who planned the apprehension of Mahmoud Khalil in New York, Mohsen Mahdawi in Vermont, and Badar Khan Suri, a postdoctoral scholar and professor at Georgetown University. The agents testified that supervisors had conveyed to them that the Department of State notified their offices that these scholars were in violation of immigration law, and that resources should be swiftly allocated to locate and eventually arrest them. Shelley Murphy of the Globe staff and Globe correspondent Angela Mathew contributed to this report. Giulia McDonnell Nieto del Rio can be reached at
