Harvard asks judge to block Trump administration from withholding federal funds
Attorneys for Harvard University and the American Association of University Professors asked a federal judge Monday to prevent the Trump administration from withholding federal funds from the school.
Lawyers for university are seeking a motion for summary judgment to prevent the administration from withholding federal funding if the school does not comply with its list of demands.
At a hearing Monday, the government argued that its grant contracts with Harvard include language saying the government can terminate its contracts if the school does not align with the government's priorities.
"Harvard should have read the fine print," Michael Velchik, an attorney for government argued.
Government attorneys say the government's priorities include combatting antisemitism, and that the administration will not fund institutions that fail to address antisemitism to its satisfaction.
The same money could be sent to HBCUs or any other university that does not discriminate on the basis of race, Velchik said.
Saying that the government can terminate its contract regardless of the reason, Velchik argued that Harvard should bring a termination of contract claim in the Court of Federal Claims.
When the judge pushed back that claims of constitutional violations cannot be brought in that court, Velchik maintained that this is a termination of contract issue.
"This case is only about money. Harvard is the richest university in history," Velchik said. "Harvard wants billions of dollars that's the only reason why we are here."
Velchik said that recent pro-Palestinian protests have prompted students on campus to wear baseball caps to hide their identity and have prompted professors to avoiding walking through Harvard Yard. Federal taxpayers should not support this, he argued.
President Donald Trump issued an order to combat antisemitism, and the government's policy is that that taxpayer dollars do not go to institutions that fail to address antisemitism, Velchik said.
Attorneys for Harvard pushed back, saying they brought the case against the government to protect the school's constitutional and statutory rights.
"Until today I'm not sure we heard any explanation about what the agency priorities are," Steven Paul Lehotsky, an attorney for Harvard, said.
The provision of funding contracts that allows the government to terminate contracts in pursuit of its priorities refers to research priorities, not institutions that the government prefers, Lehotsky said. For example, shifting from funding Covid vaccines to something else, not shifting from funding one institution to another, he said.
"This is an astounding theory that only the executive branch could possibly love," Lehotsky said.
Lehotsky argued that the government simply did not want to follow the procedures mandated by Title VI. They can't choose to follow it whenever they decide it is convenient for them, he argued.
If they have a provision that they can terminate funding for any reason, "that doesn't mean that they get to set aside the Constitution," he said.
U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs said at the end of the hearing that she would try to get out an opinion as quickly as she can.
Trump, posting on his social media platform Monday, criticized Burroughs and called her "a TOTAL DISASTER."
"She has systematically taken over the various Harvard cases, and is an automatic 'loss' for the People of our Country!" Trump wrote, saying that the government would "IMMEDIATELY appeal" if the judge rules in Harvard's favor.
ABC News' Arthur Jones II contributed to this report.
