Why Judge Burroughs's skepticism marks a turning point in the US-Harvard funding clash

Time of India

22-07-2025

Harvard's $2.6 billion clash with US government faces key court scrutiny
A federal court hearing on the lawsuit between Harvard University and the US government over a $2.6 billion funding freeze saw pointed questioning from United States District Judge Allison D.
Burroughs, casting doubt on the administration's justification for the freeze. The case, which could determine the future of Harvard's research funding, centers on allegations that the university failed to address antisemitism on campus.
At the hearing held in a packed courtroom in Boston, Burroughs pressed government attorney Michael K. Velchik on how the administration's decision to halt billions in research funding was tied to its stated goal of combating antisemitism at Harvard.
The lawsuit has become a central point in a broader legal and political standoff between Harvard and President Donald J. Trump's administration, which has accused the university of permitting antisemitism and failing to uphold civil rights protections.
Judge questions link between speech and research funding
According to The Harvard Crimson, Judge Burroughs said during the hearing, "They're not funding speech, they're funding research.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
A genetic disorder that is damaging his organs. Help my son
Donate For Health
Donate Now
Undo
And you're tying that research to speech." She expressed skepticism about whether concerns about antisemitism could justify such steep funding cuts to the university's research enterprise. Velchik, representing the government, argued that the cuts were in response to pro-Palestine protests and incidents including the vandalism of the John Harvard statue after the October 7 Hamas attacks on Israel.
Velchik also said that the government was responding to complaints from students, donors, and law enforcement, and asserted that federal agencies had the right to redirect funds when grantee goals no longer aligned with government priorities.
As reported by The Harvard Crimson, Burroughs responded that such a justification would allow the government to cancel grants "even if their termination violated the Constitution," calling the implications "staggering.
"
Harvard accuses the administration of First Amendment violations
Harvard's legal team described the Trump administration's actions as unconstitutional. Steven P. Lehotsky, a lawyer for Harvard, argued that the government's funding freeze was "a blatant, unrepentant violation of the First Amendment," as quoted by The Harvard Crimson.
The university has claimed the funding freeze was retaliatory, tied to its refusal to accept policy changes demanded by the administration.
Funding freeze follows administration demands
The funding freeze followed an April 11 letter from the government, mistakenly sent to Harvard leadership, which outlined a series of demands. These included external audits of academic departments, changes to hiring and admissions practices, elimination of diversity programs, and regular compliance reports.
Harvard President Alan M. Garber rejected the demands, calling them "assertions of power, unmoored by the law, to control teaching and learning at Harvard," as reported by The Harvard Crimson.
Wider impact on research and student access
The freeze has affected research projects across the university, including work on cancer treatments and other scientific initiatives. Harvard has implemented cost-cutting measures, layoffs, and hiring freezes.
It has also sued the Trump administration a second time over visa restrictions and access to a federal database, which affected international student enrollment.
Next steps in the lawsuit
Judge Burroughs has not issued a final ruling but said a decision would come quickly. Harvard has requested a ruling by September 3, the government's deadline for submitting grant termination paperwork, as reported by The Harvard Crimson. Although settlement talks are ongoing, Harvard's faculty association, the American Association of University Professors, has requested to continue its separate legal challenge in case Harvard reaches an agreement before a final ruling is made.
TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us
here
.
Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!