Judge reverses Trump administration freeze on Harvard funding

U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration violated the Constitution by freezing more than $2.6 billion in research funding to Harvard University. President Donald Trump cut Harvard’s funding in April after the Ivy League institution refused to enact institutional reforms to combat anti-Semitism on campus. Burroughs’ summary judgement reversed the funding block and marked a major win for the university.

How is it illegal for the executive branch to wield its constitutional power over funding? Burroughs viewed the administration’s funding freeze as retaliation against the school’s use of protected speech and its decision not to enact Trump’s reforms. Her summary judgement cited little to no connection between anti-Semitism and the school’s federally funded research. The Trump administration also failed to acknowledge the reforms and commitments Harvard already made to combat discrimination, she wrote.

Burroughs also wrote that the government violated Title VI statutes requiring agencies to give schools notice before cutting federal funding for civil rights violations. She said Title VI also requires the government to conduct an investigation and provide an opportunity for the school to respond. The evidence makes it hard to conclude anything but that the administration used anti-Semitism as a smokescreen to launch an ideologically-motivated assault on the country’s top universities, she wrote.

She described the funding freeze as capricious, adding that federal investigators gathered little to no evidence about anti-Semitism at Harvard before cutting the funds. The primary document the administration used to prove anti-Semitism’s presence on campus was a report published two weeks after funding was frozen, she noted.

How are people responding? Burroughs’ judgment affirmed important principles, namely academic freedom and First Amendment rights, Harvard University President Alan Garber wrote in a Thursday statement. The university will continue assessing the impact of this ruling and be mindful of the changing landscape moving forward, he added.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, or FIRE, hailed the ruling as a free speech win. The Trump administration trampled Harvard’s First Amendment and broke civil rights law, according to the group. Battling anti-Semitism is a worthy goal, but should not be met with unconstitutional means, the group added. Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., also released statements on Wednesday praising the ruling as a win against the Trump administration.

How has the Trump administration responded? In a statement to WORLD, White House spokeswoman Liz Huston characterized the ruling as an egregious decision from a judge appointed by former President Barack Obama. Any fair-minded observer would see that Harvard had failed for years to protect students from harassment, she said. Harvard does not have a right to taxpayer dollars and will remain ineligible for federal grants in the future, according to Huston. Huston went on to say that Trump predicted this decision and his administration would ultimately be successful at appealing it.

Dig deeper: Read Mary Jackson’s report in WORLD Magazine for more about the Trump administration’s pushback on anti-Semitism and funding at Harvard.