Full Breakdown
Appeals Court Weighs Authority to Restore Trump-Era Funding Cuts to Harvard
By Drooid · · How we work
Legal Fight Over Harvard Funding Cuts
A three-judge panel of the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments on whether U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs correctly ordered the restoration of federal research funding that the Trump administration had frozen. The administration had cut the grants after accusing Harvard University of failing to address antisemitism on campus. Burroughs’ 2025 decision reinstated more than $2.6 billion in research awards, but the Justice Department contends the district court lacked authority to compel payment.
Background: Trump Administration’s Campaign Against Elite Universities
Since returning to the White House, President Donald Trump has pursued a broader strategy to reshape elite and public universities, citing “radical left” influence. The administration issued a list of ten demands in April 2025—including the elimination of diversity, equity and inclusion programs and the appointment of third-party auditors—to Harvard. President Alan Garber rejected the demands, arguing that no government should dictate university curricula, admissions or hiring. Within hours, the Justice Department froze federal grants, ultimately terminating about $2.2 billion in awards.
Jurisdiction Dispute and Arguments
Court of Federal Claims. Harvard’s counsel, Paul Clement, countered that the case raises broader retaliation and discrimination issues that transcend any contract. Circuit Judge Sandra Lynch expressed skepticism of the administration’s claim, noting the absence of findings or investigations before the termination announcement.
Funding Figures
- Restored funding: > $2.6 billion (district court order).
- Terminated funding: ? $2.2 billion (administrative freeze).
Both amounts are central to the dispute over whether the government can condition federal dollars on compliance with its antisemitism policies.
Verbatim Quotes
- “The problem is that the district court lacked jurisdiction to order specific performance,” — Michael Velchik, DOJ attorney
- “Harvard has said it’s taken enough steps, but does the government have to accept that?” — Michael Velchik, DOJ attorney
- “These are not claims that really depend on the contract in any particular way,” — Paul Clement, an attorney for Harvard
- “There are no findings, there was no investigation, there was simply an announcement: ‘we’re terminating’,” — Sandra Lynch, circuit judge