Appeals court hears arguments on Harvard funding restored after Trump-era cuts

BOSTON · A federal appeals court panel heard arguments Monday over whether a lower court judge had the legal authority to order the restoration of federal research funding to Harvard University. The Trump administration had cut more than $2.6 billion from the Ivy League school. U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs ruled last year that the funding cuts were illegal retaliation for Harvard's rejection of administration demands. She restored the funding, which has since resumed flowing to the university.

A Justice Department attorney argued that Judge Burroughs lacked jurisdiction to issue such an order. Michael Velchik told the three-judge panel of the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the dispute was a contractual matter that belonged in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. "The problem is that the district court lacked jurisdiction to order specific performance," Velchik said. He cited recent Supreme Court rulings to support his position that the judge could not compel the payment.

Harvard's attorney, Paul Clement, countered that the case involved broader issues of retaliation and discrimination, not just a contract. He said the district court's remedy of restoring the funds was appropriate for the violations it found. "These are not claims that really depend on the contract in any particular way," Clement said. The government had justified the cuts by citing Harvard's delays in addressing antisemitism, but Judge Burroughs had found the university's research funding had little connection to such discrimination.

READ MORE: Supreme Court to hear appeal on federal single-use plastics ban

READ MORE: Alberta court rules federal Impact Assessment Act still unconstitutional

Judge Joshua Dunlap, a Trump appointee, questioned Clement on whether the lower court's ruling effectively mandated payment and if Harvard's claims could stand without a contract. The other panel judges, Sandra Lynch and Gustavo Gelpi, were nominated by Democratic presidents. During the hearing, Judge Lynch expressed doubt about the administration's assertions regarding Harvard's handling of antisemitism. "There are no findings. There was no investigation. There was simply an announcement, 'We're terminating against that backdrop,'" she said. Lynch added that it seemed the administration "didn't want to have to cope with what the law and the facts of this case presented."

The lawsuit stemmed from a letter sent to Harvard by a federal antisemitism task force during the Trump administration. The letter demanded wide-ranging changes to campus policies on protests, academics and admissions, alleging the university tolerated anti-Jewish harassment. Harvard rejected the demands, and its lawsuit accused the administration of launching a retaliation campaign that included the funding cuts. The administration also moved to block Harvard from hosting foreign students and threatened its tax-exempt status. The judges did not issue an immediate ruling following Monday's arguments.

With files from CityNews, Toronto Star and Weatherford Democrat