...
By Robert Alexander
Senior Crime & Court Reporter
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
The Department of Justice appealed a ruling blocking the Trump Administration from cutting off billions of dollars to Harvard University late on Thursday.
The appeal was submitted to the Court of Appeals in a bid to overturn a September ruling by U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs that blocked the administration's move to cut funding to the Ivy League university.
It was filed just before the Justice Department’s deadline to challenge the ruling and covers both Harvard’s lawsuit to restore frozen research funding and a related case brought by the American Association of University Professors and other groups.
Read More on U.S.
Newsweek contacted the DOJ, Harvard and AAUP for comment via email outside of normal office hours on Friday.
Why It Matters
The dispute goes beyond a simple fight between Harvard University and the Trump administration, touching on how much power the federal government can wield over higher education.
At stake are billions of dollars in research funding, the stability of scientific projects that rely on federal support, and whether universities can be pressured to change admissions, hiring, or academic programs as a condition of receiving public money.
The appeal also raises broader First Amendment and academic freedom questions, making the case a potential precedent for how future administrations deal with colleges and universities nationwide.
...
What To Know
The Trump administration moved to halt billions of dollars of Harvard’s federal research funding after the university refused to comply with a list of government demands. Harvard sued, arguing the move violated the First Amendment and federal law.
Judge Burroughs sided with the university, and the administration is now appealing that decision.
What the Judge Ruled
Judge Burroughs ruled that the administration had violated legal and constitutional requirements when it halted federal grant payments after Harvard refused to comply with a list of demands from the White House.
Those demands included audits of academic programs, changes to admissions and hiring policies, and expanded oversight aimed, according to the administration, at addressing antisemitism on campus.
In her ruling, Judge Burroughs wrote that it was "difficult to conclude anything other than that defendants used antisemitism as a smoke screen for a targeted, ideologically motivated assault on this country’s premier universities."
She added that courts must act "to safeguard academic freedom and freedom of speech as required by the Constitution."
What the Trump Administration Is Arguing
The Trump administration has consistently rejected that characterization.
In court filings, Justice Department lawyers argued that federal research funds are "not charitable gratuities," but contractual payments that can be terminated if grant conditions are not met.
The administration has said Harvard failed to adequately address antisemitism and therefore did not qualify for continued funding.
After the appeal was filed, President Donald Trump reiterated his criticism of the university and defended the government’s position.
The White House had previously said it would appeal what it described as an "egregious decision," and officials have maintained that Harvard "does not have a constitutional right to taxpayer dollars."
Those statements remain central to the administration’s legal argument as the case moves forward.
Why Harvard Sued
Harvard sued the federal government in April after agencies began blocking payments on hundreds of active research grants.
The university argued that the administration bypassed required procedures under civil rights and administrative law and had retaliated against Harvard for exercising its First Amendment rights.
Following Judge Burroughs’s decision, some grant payments were restored, though officials cautioned that funding could again be disrupted depending on the outcome of the appeal.
The notice of appeal filed Thursday did not spell out the specific legal grounds the government will rely on, which is customary at that stage.
A more detailed brief is expected in the coming weeks.
The dispute has unfolded alongside intermittent settlement talks between Harvard and the government, though no agreement has been reached.
Trump has repeatedly said a deal was close, while also publicly urging his administration not to compromise.
As the case heads to the First Circuit, it is likely to become a significant test of the federal government’s authority over research funding and the extent to which that authority can be used to influence university governance and speech.
For now, Judge Burroughs’s ruling remains in effect while the appeal proceeds, leaving Harvard’s federal funding intact pending further court action.
What People Are Saying
President Donald Trump said on May 29, 2025: "Harvard wants to fight… they’re getting their ass kicked."
Harvard President Alan M. Garber said in a statement published on April 21, 2025: "Doubling down on the letter’s sweeping and intrusive demands—which would impose unprecedented and improper control over the University…"
What Happens Next
The Justice Department has appealed Judge Burroughs’s ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, where both sides will submit written arguments and potentially present oral arguments in the coming months.
While the appeal is pending, Harvard University will continue to receive federal research funding unless the government secures a stay.
The appeals court’s decision could uphold the block, reinstate the funding cuts, or send the case back to the lower court, and whichever side loses may seek further review, including a possible appeal to the Supreme Court.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines