Latest news with #StevenLehotsky
CBS News
21-07-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Fight over federal funding for Harvard is now in the hands of a judge
Lawyers for Harvard and the Trump administration asked a federal judge in Boston to decide whether the government has the power to revoke billions in funds from the elite university on Monday. Steven Lehotsky, an attorney representing Harvard, told U.S. District Court Judge Allison Burroughs that the federal government violated Harvard's First Amendment rights while Attorney Michael Velchik, who represents the Trump administration, said the government has the power to revoke its contracts and re-allocate the funds elsewhere. The fight between the Ivy League school and the federal government picked up speed in the spring when the Trump administration sent Harvard a letter demanding it make changes to admissions and hiring policies and have outside scrutiny of some of its programs in order to combat antisemitism on campus. Harvard refused to comply with the letter saying it threatened the university's autonomy and the government shot back by moving to freeze $2.2 billion in funds. Lehotsky argued Monday that the government misused the Civil Rights Act by punishing all of Harvard's labs and grant recipients with the revocation of money, regardless of whether they had anything to do with alleged antisemitism. "Alice in Wonderland, sentence first, verdict later," Lehotsky said. Michael Velchik began his oral arguments by laying out instances in which he argued Jewish students felt uncomfortable or scared at Harvard. Then, he said the government was simply revoking Harvard's funds because the university violated its contracts with the government. "Harvard is here because it wants the money. It wants billions of dollars in grant dollars and we know that," Velchik said. Judge Burroughs, at one point, questioned whether the administration can cancel contracts just because it disagrees with a certain viewpoint calling the argument, "a bit mind boggling." Now, the case is in Burroughs' hands and legal experts say other schools around the country are watching. "You see institutions in Minnesota, in California, it's just like all over the country, they're definitely following this because it has implications for what it means for an institution to have autonomy," said Raquel Muniz, at associate professor of education at Boston College's Lynch School of Education and Associate professor at the Boston College School of Law. Whoever wins the day, some legal experts believe the case could be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.
Arab News
21-07-2025
- Politics
- Arab News
Harvard seeks billions in funding restored at a pivotal hearing in its standoff with Trump
BOSTON: Harvard University appeared in federal court Monday in a pivotal case in its battle with the Trump administration, as the storied institution argued the government illegally cut $2.6 billion in federal funding. President Donald Trump's administration has battered the nation's oldest and wealthiest university with sanctions for months as it presses a series of demands on the Ivy League school, which it decries as a hotbed of liberalism and antisemitism. Harvard has resisted, and the lawsuit over the cuts to its research grants represents the primary challenge to the administration in a standoff that is being widely watched across higher education and beyond. A lawyer for Harvard, Steven Lehotsky, said at Monday's hearing the case is about the government trying to control the 'inner workings' of Harvard. The funding cuts, if not reversed, could lead to the loss of research, damaged careers and the closing of labs, he said. 'It's not about Harvard's conduct,' he said. 'It's about the government's conduct toward Harvard.' The case is before US District Judge Allison Burroughs, who is presiding over lawsuits brought by Harvard against the administration's efforts to keep it from hosting international students. In that case, she temporarily blocked the administration's efforts. At Monday's hearing, Harvard asked her to reverse a series of funding freezes. Such a ruling, if it stands, would revive Harvard's sprawling scientific and medical research operation and hundreds of projects that lost federal money. A lawyer for the government, Michael Velchik, said the Trump administration has authority to cancel the grants after concluding the funding did not align with its priorities, namely Trump's executive order combating antisemitism. He argued Harvard allowed antisemitism to flourish at the university following the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas-led attacks on Israel, including protesters camped out on campus chanting antisemitic slogans as well attacks on Jewish students. 'Harvard claims the government is anti-Harvard. I reject that,' said Velchik, a Harvard alumnus. 'The government is pro-Jewish students at Harvard. The government is pro-Jewish faculty at Harvard.' Judge questions basis for government's findings on antisemitism Burroughs pushed back, questioning how the government could make 'ad-hoc' decisions to cancel grants and do so without offering evidence that any of the research is antisemitic. At one point, she called the government's assertions 'mind-boggling.' She also argued the government had provided 'no documentation, no procedure' to 'suss out' whether Harvard administrators 'have taken enough steps or haven't' to combat antisemitism. 'The consequences of that in terms of constitutional law are staggering,' she said. 'I don't think you can justify a contract action based on impermissible suppression of speech. Where do I have that wrong.' Velchik said the case comes down to the government's choosing how best to spend billions of dollars in research funding. Harvard's lawsuit accuses the Trump administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university after it rejected a series of demands from a federal antisemitism task force in April. 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. The task force's demands included sweeping changes related to campus protests, academics and admissions. For example, Harvard was told 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. Harvard President Alan Garber says the university has made changes to combat 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.' Monday's hearing ended without Burroughs issuing a ruling from the bench. A ruling is expected later in writing. Harvard faculty, alumni rally against cuts Several dozen alumni from Harvard joined students and faculty to decry the effort to cut the federal funds, holding up signs reading 'Hands Off Harvard,' 'Strong USA Needs Strong Harvard' and 'Our Liberty Is Not For Sale.' Anurima Bhargava, who wrote the amicus brief on behalf of more than 12,000 fellow Harvard alumni in the case, said the graduates spoke up because 'they understand what is at stake here and what the end goal of the government is, to take away our ability to pursue the mission, the freedom and the values that have been the cornerstone of higher education.' Three Harvard researchers who lost their federal funding spoke about disruptions to the long-term impact of funding on cancer, cardiovascular diseases and other health conditions. They said the cuts could force researchers to go overseas to work. 'Unfortunately, the termination of this research work would mean the end of this progress and the implications are serious for the well-being of Americans and our children into the future,' said Walter Willett, a Harvard professor of epidemiology and nutrition who lost grants that funded long-term studies of men's and women's health. 'This is just one example of the arbitrary and capricious weaponization of taxpayer money that is undermining the health of Americans,' he said. Trump's pressure campa ign involves a series of sanctions The same day Harvard rejected the government's 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 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 and argues the government has wide discretion to cancel contracts for policy reasons. The research funding is only one front in Harvard's fight with the 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.' After Monday's hearing, Trump took to his social media platform, Truth Social, to attack Burroughs, calling her a 'TOTAL DISASTER.' Burroughs was appointed by former President Barack Obama. 'Harvard has $52 Billion Dollars sitting in the Bank, and yet they are anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-America,' he wrote. 'Much of this money comes from the USA., all to the detriment of other Schools, Colleges, and Institutions, and we are not going to allow this unfair situation to happen any longer.'
Wall Street Journal
21-07-2025
- Politics
- Wall Street Journal
Harvard, Trump Administration Clash in Key Court Hearing
BOSTON—Harvard's battle with the Trump administration over the future of the university reached a crescendo Monday in a federal courtroom here, as the Ivy League school argued the government had no basis to cut $2.2 billion of research funding. 'What we're here for are our constitutional rights,' Steven Lehotsky, an attorney for Harvard, told a federal judge.
Fox News
21-07-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Harvard, Trump battle for billions in federal funds as judge weighs next steps
Lawyers for Harvard University and the Trump administration sparred in federal court in Boston on Monday over the administration's decision to slash roughly $2.6 billion in federal research funding for the university – the latest in a series of high-stakes court clashes that have pitted the Trump administration against the nation's oldest university. Harvard sued the Trump administration in April over the funding freeze, which it described in its lawsuit as an unlawful and unconstitutional effort to assert federal "control" over elite academic institutions, according to a filing submitted to U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs. The Trump administration, for its part, has accused Harvard of "fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus," and refusing to comply with demands from a federal antisemitism task force sent to the university earlier this year. Both sides have asked Burroughs, an Obama appointee, to issue a summary judgment by early September, which could allow them to avoid a lengthy trial before the start of the new school year. In court on Monday, Harvard lawyer Steven Lehotsky argued that the funding cuts are an illegal attempt by the Trump administration to coerce the university into complying with the administration's policies and violate the First Amendment and Title VI protections. Lawyers for Harvard have argued that the Trump administration's actions amount to an unconstitutional "pressure campaign" to influence and exert control over its academic programs, which Lehotsky echoed on Monday. He told Burroughs the funding freeze is an attempt by the Trump administration to control the "inner workings" of the university, and one he argued could cause lasting damage. He pointed to earlier claims from Harvard that the administration "fails to explain how the termination of funding for research to treat cancer, support veterans, and improve national security addresses antisemitism." "By accepting federal funds, Harvard agreed to abide by the provisions in Title VI and the relevant agencies' corresponding regulations," lawyers for the university said in filing the lawsuit earlier this year. But Harvard's agreement, they said, does not constitute a "blank check for agencies to impose the government's recent, unrelated demands as a condition of continued funding." Meanwhile, Michael Velchik, a lawyer for the Justice Department, countered that the administration has "every right" to cancel the funding, which they sought to frame as a mere contract issue and one that should be heard in a different court. The Justice Department also reiterated that they see Harvard's actions as violating the administration's order combating antisemitism. "Harvard claims the government is anti-Harvard. I reject that," Velchik said on Monday. "The government is pro-Jewish students at Harvard. The government is pro-Jewish faculty at Harvard." President Donald Trump signaled dissatisfaction with the hearing on Monday – vowing on social media to appeal any ruling against the administration to a higher court. He also took aim at Burroughs. "How did this Trump-hating Judge get these cases?" he said on Truth Social, "When she rules against us, we will IMMEDIATELY appeal, and WIN," Trump further took aim at Harvard, accusing the university of being "anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-America," despite having "$52 billion" sitting in the bank. "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," Trump said. Burroughs ended Monday's hearing by saying she would take the case under advisement, and would issue a ruling after she had sufficient time to weigh the matters presented by the administration and the university. She did not offer a timeframe for when she planned to rule on the matter. Still, the judge appeared skeptical during the hearing of some Trump administration claims, including how it could make such wanton cuts to university funding. At one point, Burroughs noted to Velchik that she had doubts about the government's so-called "ad hoc" decisions to cut billions in grant money without providing further evidence, documentation or procedure to "suss out" whether the university or its administrators had taken sufficient steps to combat antisemItism or comply with the guidance handed down by the Trump administration. "The consequences of that in terms of constitutional law are staggering," she told Velchik at one point during the hearing. "I don't think you can justify a contract action based on impermissible suppression of speech." Since Trump took office in January, the administration has targeted the university with investigations from six separate federal agencies. It has also sought to ban Harvard's ability to host international students by attempting to revoke its certification status under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) – a program led by the Department of Homeland Security that allows universities to sponsor international students for U.S. visas. Burroughs in June issued a temporary restraining order blocking the administration from immediately revoking its SEVP credentials, siding with Harvard in ruling that the university would likely suffer "immediate and irreparable harm" if the action was enforced. Harvard, meanwhile, has signaled no plans to stand down in its fight with the Trump administration. "Ultimately, this is about Trump trying to impose his view of the world on everybody else," Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman said in a radio interview earlier this summer discussing the administration's actions.
The Independent
21-07-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Trump team ‘cooked up' legal basis to go after Harvard funding, university lawyers tell judge
Attorneys for Harvard University have accused Donald Trump's administration of having 'cooked up' a bogus legal basis to pull $2.6 billion in federal funding from the nation's oldest university. In a court hearing on Monday, the university's legal team accused the administration of ' blatant, unrepentant ' First Amendment violations with its list of demands to 'address bias, improve viewpoint diversity, and end ideological capture,' including reviewing departments that 'fuel antisemitic harassment.' 'It's the constitutional third rail, or it should be, for the government to insist it can engage in viewpoint discrimination,' said Harvard's attorney Steven Lehotsky, arguing that the administration is threatening the university's independence. The White House and the university have sparred for months over the administration's escalating attempts to bend Harvard and other institutions to ideologically driven demands, particularly over opposition to pro-Palestine campus demonstrations against Israel's war in Gaza, which the administration claims are antisemitic. In April, the government emailed Harvard a set of demands, including to submit to a 'viewpoint diversity' audit and end diversity-based hiring and admissions practices. The administration then threatened to terminate more than $2 billion in federal grants. Those grants support research into Alzheimer's prevention, cancer treatment, and national security studies, among other projects. Harvard's federal lawsuit says the government 'fails to explain how the termination of funding for research to treat cancer, support veterans, and improve national security addresses antisemitism.' In court documents, attorneys for the university argue that the administration is wielding funding threats as 'leverage to gain control of academic decisionmaking at Harvard' while imperiling vital research in medicine, science and technology. The Trump administration denies the cuts were retaliatory and were under review long before the demand letter was sent in April. Massachusetts District Judge Allison Burroughs appeared unconvinced. 'You're not taking away grants from labs that have been antisemitic,' she told lawyers for the government during Monday's hearing in Boston. Burroughs argued that the government provided 'no documentation, no procedure' to determine whether Harvard had 'taken enough steps' to combat allegations of antisemitism. 'The consequences of that in terms of constitutional law are staggering,' she added. 'I don't think you can justify a contract action based on impermissible suppression of speech. Where do I have that wrong?' Department of Justice counsel Michael Velchik argued that the administration has authority to make such decisions about where funding should or shouldn't go, and that 'the government does not want to fund research at institutions that fail to address antisemitism to its satisfaction.' Monday's hearing follows months of tension between Harvard and the Trump administration, which has zeroed in on campus activism at prestigious universities as part of a multi-pronged attack on campus dissent; diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives; and immigration policies and international students. Department of Homeland Security has accused Harvard of fostering 'anti-American, pro-terrorist agitators,' and the president has complained that the university has not provided the government with information about foreign students he calls 'radicalized lunatics' and 'troublemakers' who 'should not be let back into our Country.' In May, the administration also tried to rescind Harvard's permissions to enroll international students and forced currently enrolled foreign students to leave the university or risk losing their legal status in the U.S. Judge Burroughs blocked that attempt day later in a separate lawsuit brought by the university. The General Services Administration also ordered federal agencies to consider canceling government contracts with Harvard, which the agency accused of continuing to 'engage in race discrimination, including in its admissions process and in other areas of student life' and failing to protect students from antisemitism. 'The gravy train of federal assistance to institutions like Harvard, which enrich their grossly overpaid bureaucrats with tax dollars from struggling American families, is coming to an end,' White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement when the cuts were first announced. 'Taxpayer funds are a privilege, and Harvard fails to meet the basic conditions required to access that privilege.' But the government 'has not — and cannot — identify any rational connection' between allegations of antisemitism and threats to research that 'aims to save American lives, foster American success, preserve American security, and maintain America's position as a global leader in innovation,' according to Harvard's complaint.
