BOSTON — A federal judge appeared deeply skeptical Monday of the Trump administration‘s efforts to strip Harvard University of billions of dollars in research funding, suggesting the school might prevail in its legal battle against the government.
The judge unleashed a barrage of pointed questions at the lone Justice Department lawyer. She demanded to know, for instance, how the administration could reasonably tie withdrawal of medical research funding to concerns about the civil rights of Jewish people.
And she appeared bothered by the administration’s hurried approach to attacking Harvard’s research funding, suggesting there were potentially “staggering” constitutional consequences if the government could punish a university without due process.
Monday’s hearing came two months after Harvard sued the Trump administration. In the lawsuit, Harvard accused the government of threatening the school’s First Amendment rights when it conditioned federal funding on the university bowing to a set of Trump administration demands. Beyond free speech concerns, a central question in the case is whether the Trump administration ignored rules and procedures when it blocked the funds.
The administration framed its tactics as a righteous response to antisemitism. But Harvard and its allies saw the roster of federal demands as intrusions untethered from trying to eradicate discrimination.
Michael Velchik, the Justice Department lawyer at the hearing, asserted Monday that the administration had the power to decide where it spent taxpayer money.
Harvard has sharply disputed the idea that it condones discrimination. Steven Lehotsky, a lawyer for Harvard, told Burroughs on Monday that the government’s quest to punish Harvard was a “blatant, unrepentant violation of the First Amendment.”
Harvard has also argued that the Trump administration had sped past ordinary procedures in its haste to punish Harvard..
Burroughs seemed to share those concerns.
“What I’m wrestling with is this idea that the executive branch can decide what is discriminatory or racist,” she said, and then make “these ad hoc decisions without any procedure around it.”
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
