Fight over federal funding for Harvard is now in the hands of a judge
Steven Lehotsky, an attorney representing Harvard, told U.S. District Court Judge Allison Burroughs that the federal government violated Harvard's First Amendment rights while Attorney Michael Velchik, who represents the Trump administration, said the government has the power to revoke its contracts and re-allocate the funds elsewhere.
The fight between the Ivy League school and the federal government picked up speed in the spring when the Trump administration sent Harvard a letter demanding it make changes to admissions and hiring policies and have outside scrutiny of some of its programs in order to combat antisemitism on campus. Harvard refused to comply with the letter saying it threatened the university's autonomy and the government shot back by moving to freeze $2.2 billion in funds.
Lehotsky argued Monday that the government misused the Civil Rights Act by punishing all of Harvard's labs and grant recipients with the revocation of money, regardless of whether they had anything to do with alleged antisemitism.
"Alice in Wonderland, sentence first, verdict later," Lehotsky said.
Michael Velchik began his oral arguments by laying out instances in which he argued Jewish students felt uncomfortable or scared at Harvard. Then, he said the government was simply revoking Harvard's funds because the university violated its contracts with the government.
"Harvard is here because it wants the money. It wants billions of dollars in grant dollars and we know that," Velchik said.
Judge Burroughs, at one point, questioned whether the administration can cancel contracts just because it disagrees with a certain viewpoint calling the argument, "a bit mind boggling."
Now, the case is in Burroughs' hands and legal experts say other schools around the country are watching.
"You see institutions in Minnesota, in California, it's just like all over the country, they're definitely following this because it has implications for what it means for an institution to have autonomy," said Raquel Muniz, at associate professor of education at Boston College's Lynch School of Education and Associate professor at the Boston College School of Law.
Whoever wins the day, some legal experts believe the case could be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
A $200 million endowment focused on Black Americans is taking shape
Started in 2020 as a five-year initiative inspired by the racial justice outcry following the police murder of George Floyd, the California Black Freedom Fund plans to expand to a $200 million endowment. The move is both rare in the world of philanthropy and politically bold, given the Trump administration's efforts to eliminate race-based grant making. Originally a designated fund of the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, the fund spun off on July 1, renaming itself the Black Freedom Fund, to indicate its new national scope. Over the past five years, it has drawn more than $97 million in donations. Of that, it has directed $45 million to 206 nonprofits in California, largely working to increase the sway of nonprofits that serve Black people, with a portion of the remainder being reserved to start the endowment. Marc Philpart, the fund's executive director, said the endowment will let the fund make grants of $10 million a year without cutting into its asset base, assuming historical rates of return on investments. By establishing a durable institution with a sizable reservoir of cash, the fund can serve as a lasting beacon to smaller organizations serving Black communities in California, Philpart said. 'When a crisis occurs in the Black community, philanthropy parachutes in, there's a wave of support, and then as soon as the news cameras turn away, the support recedes,' he said. 'We need enduring institutions that are led by and committed to the Black community in ways that have a lasting impact.' DEI targeted Philpart's fundraising for the endowment comes as the Trump administration has characterized diversity, equity, and inclusion programs as illegal and has called for investigations of large foundations that support diversity programs. Under Philpart's leadership, the California Black Freedom Fund started the Legal Education, Advocacy, and Defense for Racial Justice Initiative, which provides pro bono legal consulting and training for nonprofits. The program operates on the premise that there isn't anything illegal about racial justice funding. But the 2023 Supreme Court ruling against considering race in college admissions, in a pair of cases brought by Students for Fair Admissions against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, was viewed by some as an indication that private philanthropies could not legally engage in race-based grant making — and the issue is far from settled. While Philpart's fundraising pitch might resonate with some donors, others are sure to be nervous, given the scrutiny placed on race-based grant making by the White House, said Dan Morenoff, executive director of the American Civil Rights Project, a litigation and advocacy nonprofit that has challenged affirmative action programs. The White House has directed the Department of Justice to root out instances of race-based grantmaking, which it considers discriminatory. 'You don't want to be on their radar because they are fervently looking for people to make examples of at this point,' Morenoff said. While some corporations and philanthropies, including the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, an early supporter of the California Black Freedom Fund, have retreated from supporting racial justice, Philpart is counting on securing support from donors who want to stay with the cause even as the issue is argued in various court cases stemming from Trump's anti-DEI executive orders. The attacks from the administration, Philpart said, have been a 'clarifying moment' for many donors and have generated interest in the fund. 'People have rallied to us and really doubled down on their commitments to support Black freedom and Black power,' he said. 'That is the most telling thing coming out of this moment — that there is a critical mass of leaders throughout the country who care very deeply about the community.' 70 financial supporters One grantmaker that has doubled down is the California Wellness Foundation. The foundation made an initial grant of $500,000 when the fund was first launched, then made a $200,000 commitment to a separate fund created by the California Black Freedom Fund in response to the January Los Angeles fires, and recently added $500,000 to support the spin-off. Richard Tate, president of the California Wellness Fund, said the new fund is 'needed now more than ever' because of attempts by the administration to roll back equity efforts. 'The fact that we are talking about a Black Freedom Fund is an acknowledgment that not everyone has equal standing in the culture,' he said. 'Whatever headwinds that may exist because of this political moment, now is the time for us to continue to be explicit about our intentions of supporting a community.' Philanthropy needs to act quickly by unleashing more money in grants to support areas like litigation, public advocacy, and the replacement of lost federal funds, said Glenn Harris, president of Race Forward, a nonprofit racial justice advocacy group. But, he said, lasting institutions that can respond to future challenges are also needed. 'There's a balancing act,' Harris said. 'It's really clear that struggles for liberation and justice are going to be with us for a minute.' Among the two dozen grant makers that chipped in to start the fund are the Akonadi, Conrad Hilton and San Francisco foundations as well as the Emerson Collective, Crankstart, the Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Fund and the Silicon Valley Community Foundation. The total of institutional funders to the effort since 2020 now exceeds 70. Why endowments Among the groups the fund has supported are the East Bay Permanent Real Estate Cooperative, a community-owned cooperative that 'removes land and housing from the speculative market and places it into permanent community stewardship,' according to the fund. A late 2023 survey of nearly 300 foundations conducted by the Center for Effective Philanthropy found that more than two thirds of grantmakers did not offer endowment grants. Half of those that did so made them to arts organizations and museums. Nonprofits led by Black people receive endowment grants even more rarely, according to a 2022 analysis of social change organizations by the Bridgespan Group, a philanthropy consultancy, which found that nonprofits led by Black people had endowments that were only a fourth as big as those led by white people. Since then, some grant makers have stepped forward to support endowments at organizations serving members of Black communities, said Darren Isom, a partner at Bridgespan. For instance, in 2022 the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation made grants of $5 million each to three racial justice organizations led by people of color: UnidosUS, the NAACP, and Faith in Action. 'Endowments are transfer of power from philanthropic organizations to the organizations that are closest to the work,' he said. 'From an impact perspective, the work is more high impact, more beneficial, and more durable if it's owned by and led by those that are the closest to issues and closest to the communities.' Philpart is confident that despite the blow-back against diversity and racial justice, the fund can raise enough money to meet its goal. 'We're drawing people out who want to prove we are greater than divisiveness, we are greater than bigotry, and we are a greater than racism,' he said. 'We are better than all the things that pull us apart and don't fundamentally improve anyone's well-being.' ______ Alex Daniels is a senior reporter at the Chronicle of Philanthropy, where you can read the full article. This article was provided to The Associated Press by the Chronicle of Philanthropy as part of a partnership to cover philanthropy and nonprofits supported by the Lilly Endowment. The Chronicle is solely responsible for the content. For all of AP's philanthropy coverage, visit
Bloomberg
23 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Trump to Ask Congress for DC-Specific Crime Bill, Funding
President Donald Trump said he would ask Congress to approve a crime bill that would allow him greater authority over Washington, DC's police department as well as new spending to fund beautification projects, days after announcing he was taking control of law enforcement in the capital. 'We're going to be going to Congress for a relatively small amount of money,' Trump said during an event at the Kennedy Center on Wednesday, adding that he expected his Republican allies to approve the spending.
CNN
24 minutes ago
- CNN
Appeals court allows Trump to continue ending foreign aid grants
Only the legislative branch can sue a presidential administration for making changes to congressionally approved budgets, the federal appeals court in DC ruled after looking at President Donald Trump's administration ending planned grants for foreign aid. The decision empowers the Trump administration to refuse to spend budgeted money. And it will make it much harder for outside entities that don't already have contracts with the federal government to challenge the president's decisions, even in spite of Congress' power of the purse. The decision allows Trump to continue with his wind-down of foreign aid grants. The US DC Circuit Court of Appeals panel, voting 2-1, interpreted the law around the Impoundment Control Act, which regulates the action of a president to delay or withhold funding that has been already appropriated by Congress in the federal budget. In the case, grant recipients sued over access to almost $4 billion for global health and more than $6 billion for HIV/AIDS programs that were appropriated by Congress to be disbursed by the State Department and the now-essentially shuttered agency USAID. Circuit Judge Karen Henderson, in the opinion, wrote that 'the record is simply less developed' on how long grantees would survive if they can't compete for foreign aid grants in the future. Lauren Bateman of Public Citizen Litigation Group, as the lead attorney for some of the grantees that sued, said on Wednesday her organization would 'seek further review from the court.' 'In the meantime, countless people will suffer disease, starvation, and death from the Administration's unconscionable decision to withhold life-saving aid from the world's most vulnerable people,' Bateman said. The decision, however, doesn't wholesale end legal challenges around USAID. Some of the ongoing legal challenges over USAID grants regard the fulfillment of contracts rather than budget allocations in the future. The court noted that the federal government has paid 'substantially all of the amounts owed on existing contracts for work' earlier this year. The court found on Wednesday that only the Comptroller General, which is part of the legislative branch of government in the Government Accountability Office, has the ability to sue the executive over alleged impoundment. 'Here, the (Impoundment Control Act) created a complex scheme of notification of the Congress, congressional action on a proposed rescission or deferral and suit by a specified legislative branch official if the executive branch violates its statutory expenditure obligations,' Henderson, a Reagan appointee, wrote in the opinion. 'It does not make sense that the Congress would craft a complex scheme of interbranch dialogue but sub silentio also provide a backdoor for citizen suits at any time and without notice to the Congress of the alleged violation.' Judge Greg Katsas, a Trump appointee also sided with Henderson. Judge Florence Pan, a Biden appointee, wrote in a dissent that the court's decision degrades that ability of the balance of powers to be 'security against tyranny.' 'It is our responsibility to check the President when he violates the law and exceeds his constitutional authority. We fail to do that here,' Pan wrote. The majority, Pan added, 'depart from the norms of impartial appellate review' to 'announce a new and sweeping rule in the President's favor.' Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and a Georgetown law professor, criticized the powerful appellate court's reasoning on Wednesday as 'nonsensical,' because the court cut out the ability of parties to bring constitutional challenges to the president on budget changes. 'It's difficult to imagine that the full D.C. Circuit won't want to rehear this ruling,' Vladeck said. 'If it stands, Congress is only going to sue when it's adverse to the president. The real problem is the court is taking a textbook violation of the Constitution and minimizing it.'
