Two big cases underway over Trump's higher education policy. Here are the key takeaways
In courtroom 18 at the John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse, U.S. District Judge William Young heard closing arguments in American Association of University Professors (AAUP) v. Rubio. The organization's chapters at several universities, as well as the Middle East Studies Association, sued Secretary of State Marco Rubio in March over what it described as an "ideological deportation policy" the administration was using to retaliate against noncitizens for pro-Palestinian speech.
Steps away, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs heard oral arguments in Harvard's lawsuit against the administration over the more than $2.5 billion in federal funding it pulled from the school, citing its alleged inaction on antisemitism.
The First Amendment lies at the heart of both cases, which could have significant implications for the future of higher education and free speech in the U.S.
Here are key takeaways from the trials.
Research, civil rights and lives are at stake, attorneys say
Harvard's attorneys argued that the loss of federal funding would significantly damage the school's ability to conduct research that serves a public benefit while not meaningfully addressing antisemitism, NPR reported.
The Trump administration, on the other hand, said Harvard's Jewish students are harmed by the school's alleged inaction on antisemitism, which it has said amounts to a violation of federal civil rights law.
The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, along with co-counsel Sher Tremonte law firm, sued Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the Trump administration on behalf of the association's chapters at several universities, including Harvard, and the Middle East Studies Association in March.
In AAUP v. Rubio, attorneys from the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and Sher Tremonte law firm argued that the Trump administration's 'ideological deportation policy' affected not only the activists who have been arrested thus far but created a chilling effect on the free speech of noncitizen students and faculty.
The government's attorneys disputed the existence of such a policy. If it did exist, lawyer William Kanellis said, 'you'd see many more arrests.'
Judges questioned some arguments
Both judges were skeptical of some of the arguments attorneys attempted to make in their courtrooms.
The notion that the government has the authority to slash Harvard's federal funding for any reason was a 'major stumbling block for me,' Burroughs said. She said there would be 'staggering' implications for constitutional law if the government had the power to make such decisions 'for reasons oriented around speech.'
Burroughs also questioned how revoking Harvard's federal grants contributed to the government's stated objective of combatting antisemitism at the university, as the Harvard Crimson reported.
Young, meanwhile, appeared skeptical of the AAUP's argument that the Trump administration created and implemented a new 'ideological deportation' policy.
He also questioned the plaintiff's arguments surrounding Canary Mission, an organization that says it 'documents individuals and organizations that promote hatred of the USA, Israel and Jews on North American college campuses and beyond.' The plaintiff's attorneys characterized it as an extremist group the government relied upon to identify noncitizens for investigation and arrest.
Young was skeptical of the attorneys' characterization of the group and said it's 'perfectly appropriate for the government to take leads from any source.'
First Amendment issues at the heart of both cases
Alexandra Conlon, a representing the plaintiffs in the deportation case, said that by revoking visas and green cards based on noncitizens' pro-Palestinian activism, the federal government was 'systematically violating the First Amendment' and seeking to chill speech it disagrees with.
On the first day of the trial, Justice Department attorney Victoria Santora said the First Amendment applies to both citizens and noncitizens alike. But she later backtracked to say 'there are nuances to the First Amendment,' Politico reported.
Department of Justice attorney Ethan Kanter continued that argument July 21, saying noncitizens do not have First Amendment rights to the same extent as U.S. citizens. While they may have such rights in some capacity, he said, they are 'context dependent and in relation to the compelling government interest at play.'
Lawyer Steven P. Lehotsky, representing Harvard in the funding lawsuit, said the administration's actions against the university reflect a 'blatant, unrepentant violation of the First Amendment,' the Harvard Crimson reported.
Administration's moves are 'part of a broader attack'
Ramya Krishnan, a Knight First Amendment Institute attorney representing the AAUP in the deportation case, said both that case and the one over Harvard's federal funding were part of the Trump administration's higher education "power grab."
'These are part of a broader attack on higher education in this country in weakening the independence of these institutions, in undermining them as a site for discourse and intellectual inquiry," she said, "and I think that people should be very worried about that.'
The Trump administration has accused schools of engaging in "exploitative and unlawful practices" and said its steps to overhaul higher education would "rebuild public trust" in such institutions.
Burroughs said she would issue an opinion in the Harvard case soon after oral arguments concluded on July 21, the Harvard Crimson reported. The school has requested a ruling by Sept. 3, which is its deadline for submitting paperwork to close out its federal grant funding.
Young did not offer a timeline for issuing his opinion in the deportation case.
BrieAnna Frank is a First Amendment Reporting Fellow at USA TODAY. Reach her at bjfrank@usatoday.com.
USA TODAY's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
8 minutes ago
Kremlin says Trump and Putin have agreed to meeting ‘in the coming days'
LONDON -- The Kremlin has confirmed on Thursday morning U.S. President Donald Trump and Russia President Vladimir Putin have agreed to a meeting, though a specific date or location has yet to be announced. Putin adviser Yuri Ushakov said that a 'meeting between Putin and Trump (will take place) in the coming days,' adding that 'work on the summit has now begun.' Ushakov said that White House special envoy Steve Witkoff had raised the idea of a trilateral meeting between Putin, Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy but that the upcoming meeting would only be between Trump and Putin. 'The venue of the meeting between the presidents of the Russian Federation and the United States, Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, has been agreed, and the Kremlin will inform about it later,' Ushakov said. Witkoff met with Putin on Wednesday ahead of Trumps' Friday deadline for Moscow to make peace with Ukraine or face severe sanctions. Trump, on social media, suggested the meeting between Witkoff and Putin was "highly productive." "Great progress was made! Afterwards, I updated some of our European Allies. Everyone agrees this War must come to a close, and we will work towards that in the days and weeks to come," Trump wrote. Just last month, Trump said he would impose additional economic measures -- including secondary sanctions on Russian fossil fuel export customers, the largest of which are India and China -- if Putin failed to agree to a ceasefire by Aug. 8.
USA Today
9 minutes ago
- USA Today
'I won't humiliate myself': Brazil's president sees no point in tariff talks with Trump
BRASILIA, Aug 6 (Reuters) - As U.S. tariffs on Brazilian goods jumped to 50% on Wednesday, Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva told Reuters in an interview that he saw no room for direct talks now with U.S. President Donald Trump that would likely be a "humiliation." Brazil is not about to announce reciprocal tariffs, he said. Nor will his government give up on cabinet-level talks. But Lula himself is in no rush to ring the White House. "The day my intuition says Trump is ready to talk, I won't hesitate to call him," Lula said in an interview from his presidential residence in Brasilia. "But today my intuition says he doesn't want to talk. And I won't humiliate myself." Despite Brazil's exports facing one of the highest tariffs imposed by Trump, the new U.S. trade barriers look unlikely to derail Latin America's largest economy, giving Lula more room to stand his ground against Trump than most Western leaders. More: President Trump's new tariffs take effect, targeting dozens of US trading partners Lula described U.S.-Brazil relations at a 200-year nadir after Trump tied the new tariff to his demands for an end to the prosecution of right-wing former President Jair Bolsonaro, who is standing trial for plotting to overturn the 2022 election. The president said Brazil's Supreme Court, which is hearing the case against Bolsonaro, "does not care what Trump says and it should not," adding that Bolsonaro should face another trial for provoking Trump's intervention, calling the right-wing former president a "traitor to the homeland." "We had already pardoned the U.S. intervention in the 1964 coup," said Lula, who got his political start as a union leader protesting against the military government that followed a U.S.-backed ouster of a democratically elected president. "But this now is not a small intervention. It's the president of the United States thinking he can dictate rules for a sovereign country like Brazil. It's unacceptable." More: Brazil's former President Jair Bolsonaro put under house arrest ahead of coup trial The Brazilian president said he had no personal issues with Trump, adding that they could meet at the United Nations next month or U.N. climate talks in November. But he noted Trump's track record of dressing down White House guests such as South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. "What Trump did with Zelenskiy was humiliation. That's not normal. What Trump did with Ramaphosa was humiliation," Lula said. "One president can't be humiliating another. I respect everyone and I demand respect." Lula said his ministers were struggling to open talks with U.S. peers, so his government was focused on domestic policies to cushion the economic blow of U.S. tariffs, while maintaining "fiscal responsibility." The president declined to elaborate on pending measures to support Brazilian companies, which are expected to include credit lines and other export assistance. He also said he was planning to call leaders from the BRICS group of developing nations, starting with India and China, to discuss the possibility of a joint response to U.S. tariffs. "There is no coordination among the BRICS yet, but there will be," Lula said, comparing multilateral action to the strength of collective bargaining in his union days. "What is the negotiating power of one little country with the United States? None." Separately, he said Brazil was looking at lodging a collective complaint with other countries at the World Trade Organization. More: Trump hits Brazil with whopping 50% tariffs over 'harm' to U.S. companies "I was born negotiating," said Lula, who was raised in poverty and rose through union ranks to serve two terms as president from 2003 to 2010, then re-entered politics in the 2022 election to defeat the incumbent Bolsonaro. But he said he was in no rush to strike a deal or retaliate against U.S. tariffs: "We need to be very cautious," he said. Asked about countermeasures targeting U.S. companies, such as greater taxation of big technology companies, Lula said his government was studying ways to tax U.S. firms on equal standing with Brazilian companies. Lula also described plans to create a new national policy for Brazil's strategic mineral resources, treating them as a matter of "national sovereignty" to break with a history of mining exports that added little value in Brazil. (Reporting by Brad Haynes and Lisandra Paraguassu; Editing by Alistair Bell)
USA Today
9 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump's trade deals punish US allies. American consumers will pay the cost.
President Donald Trump has set up a grand contest between his Economics 101 textbook and what mainstream economists teach. President Donald Trump recently gave U.S. allies a painful whack in the international trade arena. Among the victims were Japan, South Korea and Europe. Why did Trump punish these countries? What punishments were served up? Why did the allies accept unequal deals? Finally, were the beatings deserved? Punishment was delivered because the three allies, like many others, sold more wares to U.S. customers than they purchased from U.S. vendors. In 2024, Japan sold $148.4 billion of goods to U.S. buyers and bought just $79 billion, resulting in a trade surplus of $69.4 billion. On similar arithmetic and terminology, South Korea enjoyed a 'subsidy' of $66 billion, and the European Union (27 countries) received a whopping $236 billion. In Trump's edition of Economics 101, the trade surpluses not only equate to unfair subsidies paid to foreigners, but they also destroy millions of U.S. manufacturing jobs. These are huge offenses, according to Trump's thought process, especially when committed by U.S. friends and allies. Punishment is accordingly severe. Starting on Aug. 7, Japanese and Korean goods reaching U.S. ports will pay tariffs of 15%, up from about 1% in 2024. Trump's trade practices turn back clock on economic theory Average U.S. tariffs at 15% have not been seen since the 1930s. So a $10,000 auto imported from either country would now cost the U.S. buyers $11,500. Tariffs on steel, an important export for both countries, will be much higher, at 50%. POSCO steel from Korea, which previously cost about $1,000 a ton, could now cost $1,500. But wait! In Trump's version of Economics 101, Toyota, Hyundai and POSCO will eat the added cost of the tariffs rather than passing them along to their customers. That would run counter to history, though. Experience with past trade wars, such as those over steel and aluminum in Trump's first term, demonstrated that U.S. customers pay nearly all the tariffs, not foreign suppliers. New tariffs, contravening prior U.S. obligations, are the main − but not the only − punishment. As part of the package, South Korea promised to buy $100 billion of U.S. energy products over the next four years, such as liquefied natural gas, and invest $350 billion in the U.S. shipbuilding and advanced technology sectors. How that investment will be managed remains to be determined. One possibility is that one or more South Korean business conglomerates will make proposals, subject to Trump's approval. Another possibility is a South Korean pot of money will be spent according to Trump's dictates. Either way, this part of the agreement is a step down the road to state capitalism. Tariffs are bad policy – and Trump keeps making disastrous trade deals because of it | Opinion According to the White House, Japan agreed to invest $550 billion directed by the United States in core industries, and the U.S. will retain 90% of the profits. Japan offered a looser interpretation of the agreement, with no mention of the 90% profit provision. The European Union package was icing on Trump's week of tariff deals. After heated internal debates, contesting appeasement versus retaliation, EU leaders reluctantly agreed to new U.S. tariffs of 15%, even though the average and legally promised rate was just 1% in January. The higher 50% tariff will apply to steel and aluminum exports. According to the White House, the EU agreed to buy $750 billion of U.S. energy and invest $600 billion in the U.S. before Trump leaves office. But the EU sees a best efforts deal, not binding terms. European tariff cuts remain to be negotiated and then be approved by the 27 member states. Consumers create trade imbalances, not governments Why did the allies accept highly unequal terms? Put simply, security overrides economics. Europe is desperate to keep Trump on its side in the Ukraine war. Japan and South Korea see their only hope of withstanding Chinese military strength is through American backing. Trump, when in trouble, throws tantrums. The economy is his latest conniption. | Opinion Did the allies deserve the beatings they accepted? Mainstream economists do not agree that it's unfair when a country sells more than it buys. Nor do they believe that tariffs will reduce U.S. trade deficits. Deficits arise because Americans as a nation spend more than they earn. Excess spending spills into imports from abroad. A household that spends more than it earns builds up credit card debt. Similarly, the United States builds up debt to foreign countries. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Higher import prices resulting from tariffs will cost American consumers more than $3,000 per household. Mainstream economists see no evidence that higher import prices will prompt Americans to spend less than they produce. Moreover, mainstream economists predict that tariffs on intermediate goods, like steel and auto parts, will destroy as many manufacturing jobs as tariffs on finished goods, like iPhones and furniture, might create. In fact, manufacturing employment is down. Trump has set up a grand contest between his Economics 101 textbook and what mainstream economists teach. Americans will soon know whether the mainstream text or the Trump version has better predicted the outcome of America's trip to the yesteryear of high tariffs. Gary Clyde Hufbauer is nonresident senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
