At a U.S. federal court hearing on Monday, Harvard University and the U.S. Department of Justice sharply opposed their positions. Harvard University asked a judge to rule by early September to meet a deadline set by the U.S. government to restore $2.2 billion in funding or have to terminate these canceled research projects.
Harvard clashes with the Trump administration in key court hearings as Harvard fights to restore federal funding.
At a U.S. federal court hearing on Monday, Harvard University and the U.S. Department of Justice sharply opposed their positions. Harvard's attorney Steven Lehotsky told the federal judge:
We are here for our constitutional rights.
Michael Velchik, a lawyer representing the U.S. Department of Justice, countered that,
If Harvard truly cares about the importance of this study, they should address anti-Semitism on campus.
The immediate impact of the $2.2 billion lawsuit is imminent. Harvard asked the judge to rule by early September to meet a deadline set by the U.S. government to restore funding or have to terminate the canceled research projects.
The Trump administration has previously threatened to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status, seek to limit its ability to recruit international students and launch investigations into foreign donations it accepts. Analysts believe that the outcome of this lawsuit goes far beyond the budget of a university, and the verdict may set an important precedent for future funding cooperation between the government and universities.
Harvard University advocates: This is about freedom of speech and constitutional rights
Harvard's core argument is that the funding cuts are a violation of its First Amendment rights.
Lawyers for the school argued in court that the government withdrew the research funding after Harvard rejected a series of government demands on its hiring, admissions and teaching content. Harvard believes this constitutes unconstitutional retaliation.
In addition, Harvard University accused the U.S. government of acting "arbitrarily and capriciously." They argue that by cutting off funding on the grounds of anti-Semitism, the government is bypassing the normal process for ending federal funding.
To counter the accusation, Harvard released a 311-page report in April detailing anti-Semitism on its campus and its efforts to address it.
Lehotsky, an alumnus of Harvard Law School and the school’s attorney, said:
This is really about federal control over the inner workings of one of the oldest institutions of higher education in the United States.
U.S. government rebuts: The core of the dispute is the contract, not the constitution
Contrary to Harvard's constitutional claims, the Trump administration has framed the case as a straightforward contract law dispute. The government insists it has the right to terminate contracts with universities that no longer meet government priorities.
Ahead of the hearing, the government submitted thousands of pages of documents to the court detailing terminated grant programs from agencies including the National Institutes of Health, the Energy Department and the Defense Department. Grant cancellation letters included in court documents told researchers that their projects "no longer achieve the institution's priority objectives."
Justice Department lawyer Velchik further argued that the funds allocated to Harvard might be better used at other universities, including historically black institutions or community colleges. He said:
Harvard University does not have a monopoly on truth.
At the same time, the government also argued that the case did not fall within the jurisdiction of the federal courts at all, but should be heard by the administrative courts that usually handle government contract disputes. However, Judge Burroughs expressed his disapproval of this view on Monday.
Federal judge's inquiry: Challenges to both sides' arguments
Judge Allison Burroughs, who presided over the case, carefully questioned the arguments of both sides, showing the complexity of the case.
She explicitly rejected the government's suggestion that the case was reduced to a contract dispute, stating:
You cannot violate the Constitution by terminating a contract. There are limits on what can be terminated, why it can be terminated, and how it can be terminated.
However, Judge Burroughs also raised questions about Harvard's position. She asked attorney Lehotsky if the terms of the contract do say the government can terminate the contract based on a change in its priorities, why can't the government do the same.
This case not only concerns the fate of Harvard itself, but also affects the future of the entire American higher education and scientific research system.
Several nonprofits, state governments and other universities have filed "amicus briefs" with the court supporting both sides of the lawsuit. At the same time, Harvard University's faculty union also filed related lawsuits, further complicating the situation.
Related articles:
Harvard University: Government actions could increase annual costs by nearly $1 billion