Latest news with #CivilRightsAct
ABC News
11 hours ago
- Politics
- ABC News
Why Harvard University has taken the Trump administration to court over funding cuts
A battle between one of the world's most celebrated universities and the US government has been playing out in the public sphere. Now, Harvard University's fight to keep billions of dollars in government funding has made its way to court. So, why was Harvard's funding cut in the first place, and how did the tussle get to this? In March, the US Education Department formed a task force to look into antisemitism at public universities, as pro-Palestine protests about the war in Gaza popped up on campuses across the nation. The task force sent warnings to numerous universities, including Harvard, that they needed to do more to protect Jewish and Israeli students or they would face government punishment. Harvard rejected that warning and numerous follow-up demands from the department. "The university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights," Harvard president Alan Garber said in April. The Trump administration responded by freezing $US2.6 billion ($3.98 billion) of federal grant funding to Harvard, a major hit to the university's medical and science research programs. The university sued the Trump administration over the freeze, calling it illegal. It claimed the government had overstepped in violation of America's right to free speech and that the research funding grants could not be reasonably connected to antisemitism. Title VI is the section under the Civil Rights Act (1964) that "prohibits discrimination based on race, colour, or national origin in programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance." The Act applies to various sectors that receive federal funding, such as hospitals, social services, and education. The Trump administration said Harvard and other universities have violated this act by failing to protect Jewish students from harassment. Harvard Magazine reports the university received $US686 million in federal research funding in 2024, about 11 per cent of its annual budget. Since the funding freeze, thousands of grants and contracts across multiple years have been cancelled. The grants supported a variety of different studies, including DNA research, sudden infant death, and dementia. Harvard has warned that the funding freeze could lead to the loss of research, the closing of labs, and damage to careers. Three Harvard researchers who lost their federal funding spoke about disruptions to the long-term impact of funding on cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and other health conditions. They said the cuts could force researchers to go overseas to work. "Unfortunately, the termination of this research work would mean the end of this progress and the implications are serious for the well-being of Americans and our children into the future," said Walter Willett, a Harvard professor of epidemiology and nutrition who lost grants that funded long-term studies of men's and women's health. "This is just one example of the arbitrary and capricious weaponisation of taxpayer money that is undermining the health of Americans." While Harvard was a big target for the Trump administration, the US Education Department has warned 60 universities that it could bring similar enforcement actions against them over antisemitism allegations. Some major universities already facing cuts include: According to the latest data from the National Center for Education Statistics, federal grant funding accounted for $US41 billion out of $500 billion in university revenue in 2023. Judge Allison Burroughs is overseeing this case. On the first day of the hearing, she questioned how the government could make "ad-hoc" decisions to cancel grants and do so without offering evidence that any of the research was antisemitic. At one point, she called the government's assertions "mind-boggling." She also argued the government had provided "no documentation, no procedure" to "suss out" whether Harvard administrators "have taken enough steps or haven't" to combat antisemitism. "I don't think you can justify a contract action based on impermissible suppression of speech. Where do I have that wrong?" Judge Burroughs is also overseeing another case involving Harvard and the Trump administration, where she has temporarily blocked Homeland's decision to revoke Harvard's Student and Exchange Visitor Program. In 2018, she presided over Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v Harvard University, which argued the school's admissions program was discriminatory against Asian Americans, ultimately finding in favour of Harvard. Steven Lehostky represented Harvard on day one of the hearing. He argued the case was about the government trying to control the "inner workings" of Harvard. "It's not about Harvard's conduct," he said. "It's about the government's conduct toward Harvard." Michael Velchik, himself a Harvard alumnus, represented the Trump administration on Monday. He said the Trump administration has the authority to cancel the grants after concluding the funding did not align with its priorities, namely Trump's executive order combating antisemitism. He argued Harvard allowed antisemitism to flourish at the university following the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attacks on Israel, including protesters camped out on campus chanting antisemitic slogans as well as attacks on Jewish students. "Harvard claims the government is anti-Harvard. I reject that," Mr Velchik said. "The government is pro-Jewish students at Harvard. The government is pro-Jewish faculty at Harvard." Donald Trump pre-emptively posted on Truth Social, criticising Judge Burroughs and announcing plans to appeal. "The Harvard case was just tried in Massachusetts before an Obama appointed Judge," he wrote. "She is a TOTAL DISASTER, which I say even before hearing her Ruling. She has systematically taken over the various Harvard cases, and is an automatic "loss" for the People of our Country! "Harvard has $52 Billion Dollars sitting in the Bank, and yet they are anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-America." He questioned how "this Trump-hating Judge" was assigned to the case. "When she rules against us, we will IMMEDIATELY appeal, and WIN. Also, the Government will stop the practice of giving many Billions of Dollars to Harvard, much of which had been given without explanation." It is possible. Australia's special envoy to combat antisemitism, Jillian Segal, has recommended government withhold funding from universities that fail to reduce hatred against Jewish students. She plans to assess universities with a "report card" on their implementation of practices to combat antisemitism. Australian universities that fail to act and are found to engage in discriminatory or hateful speech risk having government funding withheld and grants terminated. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese welcomed the July 10 report, which is currently under review. ABC/Wires
Yahoo
21 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump lashes out at federal judge presiding over Harvard case
President Donald Trump attacked the federal judge presiding over Harvard University's lawsuit against his administration in a Monday afternoon social media post. Harvard is seeking to restore more than $2 billion in funding from the federal government after the Trump administration launched a review of roughly $9 billion in grants and contracts with the university over accusations that Harvard violated the rights of Jewish students, including during demonstrations against the Israel-Hamas war. U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs, who was appointed to the federal bench by former President Barack Obama in 2014, heard arguments Monday morning in the case, the latest in a series of standoffs between the university and the White House. 'She is a TOTAL DISASTER, which I say even before hearing her Ruling,' Trump wrote in the post to his social media platform, Truth Social. 'She has systematically taken over the various Harvard cases, and is an automatic 'loss' for the People of our Country!' Trump also said he planned to appeal her decision if the judge rules against his administration. He also attacked Harvard as 'anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-America,' touting the White House's decision to freeze several billions of dollars in grants to Harvard. Burroughs sided with Harvard last month in a separate lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's attempt to revoke the institution's ability to sponsor international students. Spokespeople for Burroughs and Harvard did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The Trump administration has accused Harvard and several other universities of violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act in their response to anti-Israel protests on campuses across the country, with Harvard also facing scrutiny from the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Education and the Department of Homeland Security. In its lawsuit, Harvard argued the administration is illegally retaliating against the university for rejecting a set of demands sent to Harvard leaders from the federal government in an April letter. The letter, crafted by a federal antisemitism task force, demanded Harvard institute sweeping changes to its governance, diversity programs and hiring and admissions policies, among other concessions, to maintain its funding. Harvard President Alan Garber has been sharply critical of the Trump administration, writing in an April statement that 'the consequences of the government's overreach will be severe and long-lasting' in response to the funding freeze.
Yahoo
21 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Harvard takes on the Trump administration in federal court
Harvard University was back in court Monday for a hearing in its funding fight case against the Trump administration, a key step in a battle over restoring more than $2 billion in federal funding for research frozen by the White House this spring. US District Judge Allison Burroughs heard oral arguments from Harvard's legal team and a lawyer for the Department of Justice over the school's request she declare the funding freeze unlawful. It marked a critical moment for what's become the flashpoint of a major clash over academic freedom, federal funding, and campus oversight – and a belief inside the White House that targeting the country's most elite academic institutions is a winning political issue for President Donald Trump. Harvard lawyer Steven Lehotsky argued Monday the government is in 'blatant and unrepentant violation' of the First Amendment, as well as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Cutting funding under the guise of combatting antisemitism was 'arbitrary and capricious,' Lehotsky said. The cuts will 'devastate long-running research projects, eviscerate labs, and hurt careers,' he said. The Trump administration, meanwhile, says Harvard has failed to address antisemitism on campus in the aftermath of the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel and that it is acting within its authority. 'It is the policy of the United States under the Trump Administration not to fund institutions that failed to adequately address antisemitism in their programs,' the administration has argued. Trump administration lawyer Michael Velchik, himself a Harvard alumnus, framed the lawsuit as a contract dispute, arguing the federal government has the right to terminate the contract. Harvard, he said, 'should've read the fine print,' which, he said, stated the government could decide providing funding to the university was 'no longer aligned with agency priorities,' pointing to a January executive order from Trump on the issue of antisemitism. Harvard says it is taking substantive steps to address root causes of antisemitism, including updating its rules around using campus space for protests, reviewing disciplinary processes, and expanding training on combating antisemitism. Noting she is 'both Jewish and an American,' Burroughs pressed Velchik repeatedly during the hearing on that argument, questioning the relationship between cutting funding to cancer research and ending antisemitism. 'You're not taking away grants from labs that could have been antisemitic, but just cut off funding in a way one could argue hurts Americans and Jews,' she said. The government 'vehemently disagrees,' viewing combating antisemitism as a 'legitimate priority' and the funding cuts within its rights, Velchik responded. Burroughs pressed Velchik once more. 'How do you know?' she said, adding Harvard has identified antisemitism as a problem on campus and has said it is taking steps to address it, but the government has made 'no documentation, no procedure, no process to suss out whether they've taken enough steps.' The potential consequences to constitutional law are 'staggering to me,' she said. During the rebuttal portion of the hearing, Velchik recalled his own parents' wishes for his education. 'One of my earliest memories was hearing the word, 'Harvard.' I asked my mom, 'What's Harvard?' And she looked at me and told me, 'If you get into Harvard, your father will cry.'' 'Every hardworking American parent wants their child to go to school, study, work hard, follow the rules, so that they can go to Harvard to get the best education in the world to set them up for success,' he said. But Harvard, Velchik continued, has been 'besieged' by antisemitism over the past two years. 'It's sick. Federal taxpayer dollars should not support this,' he said. The Trump administration, he said, is not 'anti-Harvard.' 'The government is pro-Jewish students at Harvard, pro-Jewish faculty at Harvard' and '(wants) a Harvard for all Americans, the best research institution in the world,' Velchik said. Burroughs asked how Harvard could be the best when the government rescinds $2.2 billion in research funding. Asked for comment ahead of the hearing, White House spokesperson Harrison Fields told CNN in a statement, 'The Trump Administration's proposition is simple and commonsense: Don't allow antisemitism and DEI to run your campus, don't break the law, and protect the civil liberties of all students.' Fields continued, 'We are confident that Harvard will eventually come around and support the president's vision, and through good-faith conversations and negotiations, a good deal is more than possible.' In April, the Trump administration wrote to Harvard President Alan Garber demanding governance and leadership reform, merit-based hiring and admissions reform, viewpoint diversity in admissions and hiring, and the discontinuation of diversity, equity and inclusion programs, among other demands. The administration has terminated $2.4 billion in federal awards for Harvard, representing more than 950 ongoing research projects. The university says the scientific research being punished by the federal funding freeze has nothing to do with antisemitism, pointing to its cutting-edge cancer prevention and treatment work, efforts to understand neurodegenerative disorders such as like Parkinson's disease, and boosting awareness and understanding of emerging biological threats. In one filing from Harvard last month, a Defense Department official told others in the Trump administration that a $12 million biological threat research grant shouldn't be terminated because it posed 'grave and immediate harm to national security.' Ultimately, Velchik argued for the Trump administration, the case is about money. Lehotsky, on behalf of Harvard, said it's about 'so much more' for the university and higher education. A small circle of Harvard leadership and White House officials had been negotiating toward a deal to end multiple legal battles between the administration and the university — including a separate lawsuit against the Trump administration over its decision earlier this year to hastily revoke the school's ability to enroll international students. Burroughs, of the federal court in Boston, ruled in Harvard's favor in that case, though the decision didn't preclude the administration from undertaking a formal review process that could eventually result in the university being unable to host foreign students and scholars. Trump appeared to indicate that those talks were bearing fruit last month. 'Many people have been asking what is going on with Harvard University and their largescale improprieties that we have been addressing, looking for a solution. We have been working closely with Harvard, and it is very possible that a Deal will be announced over the next week or so,' he said in a June 20 social media post. But the negotiations appeared to subsequently derail. The administration escalated its battle with the university days later, with an investigation finding the school in 'violent violation' of the Civil Rights Act, warning in a letter that a failure to immediately institute change 'will result in the loss of all federal financial resources and continue to affect Harvard's relationship with the federal government.' And days after that, the Department of Homeland Security sent the school administrative subpoenas regarding its Student Visitor and Exchange Program certification, seeking all relevant records, communications and other documents about Harvard's enforcement of immigration laws. Harvard has sent some signals it is willing to work with the Trump administration, including earlier this month when The Harvard Crimson reported that websites for Harvard College centers serving minority and LGBTQ students and women disappeared. The White House welcomed that development, viewing it as a goodwill gesture one official described as 'good news.' The Trump administration is in discussions with Columbia University and is on the cusp of a possible multimillion-dollar settlement. A group of Columbia officials attended a Thursday meeting at the White House, where, according to one source familiar with the negotiations, progress was made but a final deal was not inked. Asked about the state of talks, Trump told CNN on July 4, 'I think we're going to probably settle with Harvard. We're going to probably settle with Columbia. They want to settle very badly. There's no rush.' Asked how much money the settlement would entail, Trump said, 'A lot of money.' Harvard has asked for an expedited final decision from Burroughs, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, in this case and says it must be decided 'no later than September 3, 2025, which is the first date by which Harvard must start submitting this paperwork that would finally close out grant funding.' Burroughs on Monday said she had not yet made a decision in the case but would 'get an opinion out as quickly as we can.' 'I think the issue is whether there's a legitimate relationship between our distaste for discrimination and the approach the administration is taking,' she said. Shortly after the hearing concluded Monday afternoon, Trump preemptively attacked Burroughs and prejudged the case's outcome in a post on social media. 'The Harvard case was just tried in Massachusetts before an Obama appointed Judge. She is a TOTAL DISASTER, which I say even before hearing her Ruling,' the president wrote. He added, 'How did this Trump-hating Judge get these cases? When she rules against us, we will IMMEDIATELY appeal, and WIN.' CNN's Devan Cole and Katelyn Polantz contributed to this report.
Politico
a day ago
- Politics
- Politico
Trump lashes out at federal judge presiding over Harvard case
'She is a TOTAL DISASTER, which I say even before hearing her Ruling,' Trump wrote in the post to his social media platform, Truth Social. 'She has systematically taken over the various Harvard cases, and is an automatic 'loss' for the People of our Country!' Trump also said he planned to appeal her decision if the judge rules against his administration. He also attacked Harvard as 'anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-America,' touting the White House's decision to freeze several billions of dollars in grants to Harvard. Burroughs sided with Harvard last month in a separate lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's attempt to revoke the institution's ability to sponsor international students. Spokespeople for Burroughs and Harvard did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The Trump administration has accused Harvard and several other universities of violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act in their response to anti-Israel protests on campuses across the country, with Harvard also facing scrutiny from the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Education and the Department of Homeland Security. In its lawsuit, Harvard argued the administration is illegally retaliating against the university for rejecting a set of demands sent to Harvard leaders from the federal government in an April letter. The letter, crafted by a federal antisemitism task force, demanded Harvard institute sweeping changes to its governance, diversity programs and hiring and admissions policies, among other concessions, to maintain its funding. Harvard President Alan Garber has been sharply critical of the Trump administration, writing in an April statement that 'the consequences of the government's overreach will be severe and long-lasting' in response to the funding freeze.
UPI
a day ago
- Politics
- UPI
Harvard, White House in Boston federal court over university funding war
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs will hear oral arguments in Boston from Harvard University and Justice Department attorneys after federal agencies directed by President Donald Trump froze scores of government contracts and grants Harvard totaling $2.4 billion. However, it's unclear when the judge will issue a ruling. Photo by CJ Gunther/EPA July 21 (UPI) -- Harvard University lawyers will be in a federal court Monday in its ongoing battle with the Trump administration over more than $2 billon in government funding put on hold in spring by the White House. U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs will hear oral arguments in Boston from Justice Department and Harvard attorneys after federal agencies directed by President Donald Trump froze scores of government contracts and grants Harvard totaling $2.4 billion claimed in court documents in April was a "pressure campaign to force Harvard to submit to the government's control over its academic programs." The hearing is expected to last one day. Harvard requested a summary judgment in order to seek a quicker outcome. It puts at risk more than 950 of Harvard's world-renowned medical, scientific and tech research projects that the university said was "unreasonable and unreasoned" that the White House was weaponizing "as leverage to gain control of academic decision-making at Harvard." In May, the Education Department stopped diverting grant funds to the university and blocked new grants as the president threatened to end the university's status as a tax-exempt entity. The Trump administration claimed that the university failed to address rising anti-Semitism on campus in the wake of the Oct. 7, 2023, attack by Hamas on Israeli civilians. "Harvard holds the regrettable distinction of being among the most prominent and visible breeding ground for race discrimination," read a letter in part last month to University President Alan Garber from the Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism that claimed Harvard was in "violent violation" of the Civil Rights Act over a perceived failure to protect Jewish students. University officials said the federal government is violating the First Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. In court filings, the administration argued that it is the "policy of the United States under the Trump Administration not to fund institutions that failed to adequately address antisemitism in their programs." Officials said the university has taken a number of serious steps to root out anti-Semitism that included campus policy updates, expanded training and disciplinary review processes. Harvard has broad government contracts, including with NASA, Veterans Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, Small Business Administration and the Departments of Commerce and Health and Human Services. The Education Department announced in March it started a "comprehensive review of federal contracts and grants at Harvard University and its affiliates," in order to reportedly "ensure the university is in compliance with federal regulations, including its civil rights responsibilities." The next month in April, Harvard then filed a lawsuit against the federal government when it withdrew funding, but offered to reinstate it only if Harvard enforced provisions related to its employment and admissions procedures "as the basis for an agreement in principle that will maintain Harvard's financial relationship with the federal government." On Monday, a higher education lawyer suggested the case is being watched by other colleges nationwide. "Across the higher ed landscape, across the entire sector, institutions recognize that what happens in this case will really have a profound impact," Jodie Ferise, an Indiana-based attorney told NPR. Meanwhile, it's unclear when the judge will issue a ruling. However, legal experts say both sides are likely to appeal the ruling.
