Washington — A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration violated Harvard University’s First Amendment rights and federal law when it froze nearly $2 billion in federal grants because of the Ivy League school’s handling of antisemitism on campus.
In a victory for Harvard, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs blocked Trump administration officials from implementing or instituting orders freezing the grant funding to Harvard and letters terminating research grants awarded by a slew of federal agencies.
Burroughs wrote in her 84-page decision that Harvard has been “plagued” by antisemitism in recent years and should have done more to deal with the issue. But she found that there is “little connection between the research affected by the grant terminations and antisemitism.”
“In fact, a review of the administrative record makes it difficult to conclude anything other than that Defendants used antisemitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault on this country’s premier universities, and did so in a way that runs afoul of the APA, the First Amendment and Title VI,” Burroughs wrote. “Further, their actions have jeopardized decades of research and the welfare of all those who could stand to benefit from that research, as well as reflect a disregard for the rights protected by the Constitution and federal statutes.”
The decision is a significant win for Harvard, which has been targeted by the Trump administration in recent months. The administration has sought to punish Harvard over what it says is its failure to condemn antisemitism and protect Jewish students on campus. But it has also criticized the school’s hiring and admissions practices.
White House assistant press secretary Liz Huston told CBS News in a statement that the Trump administration will appeal the decision.
“Just as President Trump correctly predicted on the day of the hearing, this activist Obama-appointed judge was always going to rule in Harvard’s favor, regardless of the facts,” Huston said. “To any fair-minded observer, it is clear that Harvard University failed to protect their students from harassment and allowed discrimination to plague their campus for years. Harvard does not have a constitutional right to taxpayer dollars and remains ineligible for grants in the future. We will immediately move to appeal this egregious decision, and we are confident we will ultimately prevail in our efforts to hold Harvard accountable.”
In a statement posted to the university’s website Wednesday evening, Harvard President Alan Garber wrote that “the ruling affirms Harvard’s First Amendment and procedural rights, and validates our arguments in defense of the University’s academic freedom, critical scientific research, and the core principles of American higher education.”
The Trump administration sent a letter to Harvard leaders in April that contained a list of demands, and after the university rejected the terms, administration officials announced it had frozen more than $2.2 billion in grants and contracts to Harvard. The school later received letters from nine federal agencies canceling research grants.
The Trump administration’s cuts to federal funding to Harvard have continued, and Mr. Trump has also threatened to revoke the school’s tax-exempt status.
Harvard sued the Trump administration over the funding freeze in April, claiming the move was part of a “pressure campaign” by the White House to “force Harvard to submit to the government’s control over its academic programs,” and views on anti-Israel speech on its campus. Both Harvard and the Justice Department asked Burroughs to go straight to a decision on the merits of the suit without a trial.
In her ruling, Burroughs called the Trump administration’s actions part of a “government-initiated onslaught” against the school that was “much more about promoting a governmental orthodoxy in violation of the First Amendment than about anything else, including fighting antisemitism.”
“Harvard is currently, even if belatedly, taking steps it needs to take to combat antisemitism and seems willing to do even more if need be,” Burroughs wrote. “Now it is the job of the courts to similarly step up, to act to safeguard academic freedom and freedom of speech as required by the Constitution, and to ensure that important research is not improperly subjected to arbitrary and procedurally infirm grant terminations, even if doing so risks the wrath of a government committed to its agenda no matter the cost.”
Burroughs said that the Trump administration was right to investigate antisemitic behavior on Harvard’s campus, but said that focus was not the “true aim” of the funding freeze. Instead, she agreed with Harvard that the administration retaliated against it in violation of its First Amendment rights.
“Harvard was wrong to tolerate hateful behavior for as long as it did,” Burroughs wrote. “The record here, however, does not reflect that fighting antisemitism was Defendants’ true aim in acting against Harvard and, even if it were, combating antisemitism cannot be accomplished on the back of the First Amendment.”
Burroughs said that none of the letters the Trump administration sent to Harvard “identified any specific instance of antisemitism on Harvard’s campus, specified how Harvard failed to respond to any such acts of antisemitism in a way that violated Title VI, or reflected any effort to follow the Title VI procedural requirements that govern the termination of federal funding.”
In addition to targeting Harvard’s federal funding, the Trump administration has also taken aim at its ability to enroll international students. Harvard sued the government over its efforts, and in June, Burroughs blocked the Trump administration from revoking the university’s ability to enroll foreign students. The Justice Department has appealed that decision.
The feud between the Trump administration and Harvard continued in August, after the Trump administration signaled that it could take control of the school’s patents stemming from federally funded research.
