Sep 4, 2025 07:41 PM
https://arstechnica.com/science/2025/09/...n-funding/
EXCERPTS: A federal judge sided with Harvard University in its lawsuit against the Trump administration, ordering the US government to unfreeze about $2.6 billion in funding.
The judge's ruling also criticized the Supreme Court for issuing orders that seem to set precedents aside "without much explanation." Like various other rulings against the Trump administration, the Harvard case will be appealed and could end up at the highest court.
The Trump administration said it pulled Harvard's funding because of antisemitism at the university. But "a review of the administrative record makes it difficult to conclude anything other than that Defendants used antisemitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically motivated assault on this country's premier universities," US District Judge Allison Burroughs wrote in yesterday's ruling.
The US government's actions violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the First Amendment, Burroughs wrote. While Harvard's own statements say it "has been plagued by antisemitism in recent years and [it] could (and should) have done a better job of dealing with the issue," there is "little connection between the research affected by the grant terminations and antisemitism," Burroughs wrote.
[...] Burroughs, an Obama appointee, wrote a footnote addressing Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch's recent comments that lower courts may not "defy" the high court's rulings. "Whatever their own views, judges are duty-bound to respect 'the hierarchy of the federal court system created by the Constitution and Congress,'" Gorsuch wrote in an opinion in another case, citing several examples of district courts allegedly not following Supreme Court precedent.
Burroughs' footnote said that district courts try to follow Supreme Court rulings, but "the Supreme Court's recent emergency docket rulings regarding grant terminations have not been models of clarity, and have left many issues unresolved."
[...] White House spokesperson Liz Huston issued a statement saying the government will immediately appeal the "egregious" ruling. "Just as President Trump correctly predicted on the day of the hearing, this activist Obama-appointed judge was always going to rule in Harvard's favor, regardless of the facts," Huston said, according to the Harvard Crimson.
[...] Harvard President Alan Garber [...] noted that the case is not over. "We will continue to assess the implications of the opinion, monitor further legal developments, and be mindful of the changing landscape in which we seek to fulfill our mission," he wrote. (MORE - missing details)
EXCERPTS: A federal judge sided with Harvard University in its lawsuit against the Trump administration, ordering the US government to unfreeze about $2.6 billion in funding.
The judge's ruling also criticized the Supreme Court for issuing orders that seem to set precedents aside "without much explanation." Like various other rulings against the Trump administration, the Harvard case will be appealed and could end up at the highest court.
The Trump administration said it pulled Harvard's funding because of antisemitism at the university. But "a review of the administrative record makes it difficult to conclude anything other than that Defendants used antisemitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically motivated assault on this country's premier universities," US District Judge Allison Burroughs wrote in yesterday's ruling.
The US government's actions violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the First Amendment, Burroughs wrote. While Harvard's own statements say it "has been plagued by antisemitism in recent years and [it] could (and should) have done a better job of dealing with the issue," there is "little connection between the research affected by the grant terminations and antisemitism," Burroughs wrote.
[...] Burroughs, an Obama appointee, wrote a footnote addressing Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch's recent comments that lower courts may not "defy" the high court's rulings. "Whatever their own views, judges are duty-bound to respect 'the hierarchy of the federal court system created by the Constitution and Congress,'" Gorsuch wrote in an opinion in another case, citing several examples of district courts allegedly not following Supreme Court precedent.
Burroughs' footnote said that district courts try to follow Supreme Court rulings, but "the Supreme Court's recent emergency docket rulings regarding grant terminations have not been models of clarity, and have left many issues unresolved."
[...] White House spokesperson Liz Huston issued a statement saying the government will immediately appeal the "egregious" ruling. "Just as President Trump correctly predicted on the day of the hearing, this activist Obama-appointed judge was always going to rule in Harvard's favor, regardless of the facts," Huston said, according to the Harvard Crimson.
[...] Harvard President Alan Garber [...] noted that the case is not over. "We will continue to assess the implications of the opinion, monitor further legal developments, and be mindful of the changing landscape in which we seek to fulfill our mission," he wrote. (MORE - missing details)