Lawyers for Harvard University and the Trump administration have sparred in a Boston courtroom as they fought over President Donald Trump’s decision to strip billions of dollars in government funding for Harvard’s education programmes.
In a hearing on Monday, the judge overseeing the case seemed sceptical of the move to freeze more than $2bn (£1.5bn) in federal grants for the university in a stated effort to fight antisemitism.
Judge Allison Burroughs questioned how denying money allocated for medical research would stop antisemitism. At one point she called the government’s claims “mind-boggling”.
Lawyers for Trump argued that the cuts are deserved and necessary to punish anti-Jewish bias.
The closely watched case comes as the White House also moves to prevent the university from accessing a visa system that allows it to enrol foreign students.
Judge Burroughs, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, has already made several interim rulings in favour of Harvard in a separate lawsuit over the foreign student visa system.
In the funding battle, Harvard has asked the judge to reach a decision by 3 September – the deadline the Trump administration has given the university to wind up its financial obligations with regards to federal grants.
Any ruling in the case is likely to be appealed and could end up before the US Supreme Court.
During the packed courtroom hearing, Harvard lawyer Steven Lehotsky argued that the administration was trying to control the “inner workings” of the institution.
“The administration has given no consideration to patients, the public at large and the harm of all this research being cut off,” said Mr Lehotsky, noting that Harvard has a research relationship with the US that stretches back over eight decades.
He added that there is no evidence that the cuts – which affect research into everything from medicine to space travel to artificial intelligence – will have any impact on antisemitism on campus.
A lawyer for the government, Michael Velchik, said that the university had violated an executive order signed by Trump directed at combating antisemitism.
“Harvard wants billions of dollars and that is the only reason we are here,” said Mr Velchik, who graduated from Harvard in 2012.
He said the Trump administration was right to cancel the grants because “Harvard prioritised campus protesters over cancer research”. His comments were a reference to anti-Israel protests seen at America’s oldest university, which also took place on campuses across the US.
Judge Burroughs questioned how the government had determined whether Harvard administrators “have taken enough steps or haven’t” to combat antisemitism.
She noted that government lawyers had provided “no documentation, no procedure” to “suss out” their claims.
She also questioned whether the government believed it could cancel the allocated funds without providing proof of antisemitism.
“The consequences of that in terms of constitutional law are staggering,” the judge said, also calling the assertion “mind-boggling”.
“Don’t you have to show each researcher is antisemitic, instead of a blanket statement: Harvard is antisemitic?” she asked.
The judge declined to issue an instant summary judgement after the nearly three-hour hearing, and promised to issue a ruling soon.
Trump, in a post on Truth Social, argued that the judge is biased, and “a total disaster”. He predicted that she would rule against the government, and vowed to “immediately appeal, and win”.
Dozens of protesters assembled outside the court during the hearing, holding signs reading “defend academic freedom” and “hands off Harvard”.
Trump has previously suggested that his actions against Harvard are part of a negotiating strategy, at one point saying “I think we’re probably going to settle with Harvard”.
In a statement, a White House spokesman said: “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.”
