Harvard v. Trump

Harvard University and President Donald Trump’s administration faced off in court on Monday over billions of dollars in funding for the school.

The hearing came after months of litigation in which Harvard alleged that the government was violating its First Amendment rights by denying federal funds as a punishment for not complying with demands for a series of changes at the school.

U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs previously blocked the administration’s defunding plan, but only on a preliminary basis. The more recent hearing came after Harvard filed a motion for summary judgment, which would include a permanent block. 

Shortly after the hearing, Trump criticized Burroughs in a post on Truth Social.

In court, the Justice Department argued that the government was well within its rights to terminate funding streams to Harvard.

It also said the case should have been brought in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, which typically handles contract-related disputes, instead of federal district court.

Tension inside and outside the courthouse seemed to underscore the high stakes alleged by both sides. 

At the entrance to the Joseph Moakley federal courthouse, pro-Harvard protesters could be seen with signs reading “Opposing Genocide Is Not Anti-Semitism,” “Defend Academic Freedom,” and “Resist Tyranny.”

The hearing came alongside a trial in Boston where a group of university professors alleged the Trump administration was chilling college professors’ speech with high-profile arrests of pro-Palestinian advocates like Mahmoud Khalil.

At issue on July 21 was whether Harvard’s claims about the First Amendment allowed it to bring the case before Burroughs despite the dispute involving contracts and money.

Steven Lehotsky, who represented Harvard, alleged that the administration had engaged in a “blatant, unrepentant” violation of the First Amendment. The Trump administration, he said, gave the university an “offer we couldn’t refuse” with its demands on the university.

Justice Department attorney Michael Velchik said that the government would have canceled Harvard’s contracts regardless of how the university responded to its demands. 

Besides, he said, issues surrounding the First Amendment could still be handled in the Court of Federal Claims and should be, because the case was primarily about money.

The administration has used that line of argument in multiple cases, including one that reached the Supreme Court earlier this year. In April, the court removed a temporary block on the administration’s attempts to freeze Education Department grants. 

While the case wasn’t final, it indicated that the case should have come before the Court of Federal Claims rather than being brought in a federal district court. 

It pointed to a law known as the Tucker Act, which grants the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over cases involving contracts with the federal government. 

—Sam Dorman; Stacy Robinson

BOOKMARKS

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan ruled on Monday that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) must restore funding to a public website that tracks government spending appropriations. “Congress has sweeping authority to require public disclosure of how the Executive Branch is apportioning the funds appropriated by Congress,” the judge ruled. 

Microsoft SharePoint servers have become the target of hackers, according to the U.S. Cyber Security and Infrastructure Defense Agency (CISA). SharePoint software is used by more than 200,000 organizations and 190 million people worldwide, and CISA is still assessing the extent of the recent hacks. 

ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons says the agency will continue to target workplaces that hire illegal immigrants, and will arrest individuals even if they have no criminal record. “Not only are we focused on those individuals that are working here illegally, we’re focused on these American companies that are actually exploiting these laborers, these people that came here for a better life,” he said.

A second arrest has been made in connection to this weekend’s shooting of an off-duty Border Patrol agent in New York. The officer remains in stable condition, and there is no evidence that the shooting was related to his job.

Kentucky has filed suit against Chinese e-commerce platform Temu, alleging that the company has secretly collected American users’ personal data. It is the latest complaint against the company, following similar consumer rights violation complaints from Apple, Google, and Nebraska. 

—Stacy Robinson