Don’t miss the full story from our staff writers, whose reportage is the basis of this article.
A federal judge has struck down the Trump administration’s freeze on over $2.6 billion in grants to Harvard University, ruling that the government violated the First Amendment and federal law when it withheld research funding over the university’s response to campus antisemitism.
U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs granted Harvard’s request for summary judgment, preventing the administration from continuing to deny grant funding that was frozen in April and May. The freeze came after a federal antisemitism task force found Harvard in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act for its handling of campus hostility toward Jewish students following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israeli civilians.
In her 84-page opinion, Judge Burroughs acknowledged that Harvard “was wrong to tolerate hateful behavior for as long as it did” and that the administration was right to combat antisemitism. However, she concluded that fighting antisemitism was not the government’s true motivation, writing that the administration “used antisemitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault on this country’s premier universities.”
The judge found that the Trump administration violated the First Amendment by retaliating against Harvard for exercising free speech rights. She also ruled that the freeze orders failed to comply with the Administrative Procedures Act and Title VI civil rights protections.
The White House announced it would immediately appeal the decision, with spokesperson Liz Huston expressing confidence that the administration would “ultimately prevail in our efforts to hold Harvard accountable.”
The Department of Education criticized Judge Burroughs as the same “Obama-appointed judge” who previously ruled in favor of Harvard’s race-based admissions practices, which were later overturned by the Supreme Court in 2023.
Judge Burroughs emphasized the importance of continued federal research funding, noting that scientists have operated under the assumption they could compete fairly for government grants. She criticized the administration for failing to consider alternatives or establish a clear connection between the research funding and antisemitism issues.
The judge also pointed out that the administration never evaluated the impact of the freezes on Jewish researchers or whether Jewish people would support cutting research funding for diseases like Alzheimer’s, heart disease, or autism as a means of addressing antisemitism.
This ruling represents a significant victory for Harvard in its legal battle with the Trump administration.
While Columbia and Brown universities previously settled their Title VI cases and had their federal funding restored, Harvard chose to fight the freeze in court and has now prevailed.
Read more: Judge reverses Trump admin’s freeze of more than $2.6 billion in grants to Harvard
This article is written with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence based solely on Washington Times original reporting and wire services. For more information, please read our AI policy or contact Ann Wog, Managing Editor for Digital, at awog@washingtontimes.com
The Washington Times AI Ethics Newsroom Committee can be reached at aispotlight@washingtontimes.com.