Harvard, Trump administration clash in key court hearing

Donald Trump argues he has the power to cancel contracts with universities that don’t align with government priorities, in this case because he says Harvard has tolerated anti-Semitism on its campus.

Protesters gather outside the John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse in Boston, Massachusetts. Picture: Getty Images

Harvard’s battle with the Trump administration over the future of the university reached a crescendo on Monday in a federal courtroom in Boston, as the Ivy League school argued the government had no basis to cut $US2.2bn ($3.37bn) in research funding.

“What we’re here for are our constitutional rights,” Steven Lehotsky, a lawyer for Harvard, told a federal judge.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, insisted it has the power to cancel contracts with universities that no longer align with government priorities, in this case because of its determination that Harvard has tolerated anti-Semitism on its campus.

“If Harvard really cared about the importance of that research, they would address anti-Semitism,” Michael Velchik, a Justice Department lawyer and Harvard graduate, argued in court.

The lawsuit Harvard filed against the administration in April to restore its funds is playing out alongside the many clashes between President Donald Trump and the university.

In addition to cancelling federal research grants, Mr Trump has threatened Harvard’s tax-exempt status, sought to remove its ability to enrol international students and probed its acceptance of foreign donations.

Harvard has said its eight-decade research partnership with the federal government serves a critical societal function, supporting cutting-edge medical research, advancing technology that takes Americans to space and fuels artificial intelligence, and improving military performance.

US District Judge Allison Burroughs pushed back on Monday on the government’s assertion that the case is a straightforward contract dispute and that anti-Semitism on Harvard’s campus justified cutting the grants. She also questioned whether the government went through the proper process to terminate the grants.

“You can’t violate the constitution to terminate a contract,” Judge Burroughs said. “There are limits to what you can terminate and why and how.”

Harvard is seeking a ruling from Judge Burroughs that it has proven its case and should have its funding restored. Harvard asked the judge to make a decision by early September, before a deadline imposed on Harvard by the federal government to fully close out the cancelled research projects.

Lawyers for the university argued that the case is about Harvard’s free speech. When Harvard resisted a list of demands from the government about whom it can employ and admit, and what it should teach, the government cancelled its grants, which Harvard argues amounts to a First Amendment violation.

People walk between buildings on Harvard University campus. Picture: AP

The university also argues that the government circumvented the usual procedures for terminating funding, and acted arbitrarily and capriciously by citing anti-Semitism concerns as the reason for cutting off the money. Harvard in April published a 311-page report on campus anti-Semitism and ways the university is working to combat it.

“It’s really about the federal government’s control over the inner workings of one of America’s oldest institutions of higher education,” said Mr Lehotsky, who attended Harvard Law School.

The federal government, meanwhile, has rested on contract law and also argues Harvard’s lawsuit does not belong in federal court at all but rather in an administrative court that typically handles government contract disputes. Judge Burroughs was unsympathetic on Monday to the idea that the case did not belong in her court.

But she also questioned Harvard lawyer Mr Lehotsky on why the federal government wouldn’t be able terminate the contracts, if the contracts stipulate that they can be terminated based on changed government priorities.

The government filed thousands of pages of documents in court ahead of the hearing, detailing the grants terminated from agencies including the National Institutes of Health, the Energy Department and Defence Department. Cancellation letters included in the filings tell researchers their projects “no longer effectuate agency priorities”.

Mr Velchik suggested the money given to Harvard could be better spent at different universities, including historically black institutions, community colleges or others. “Harvard does not have a monopoly on the truth,” he said.

Judge Burroughs, a Barack Obama appointee, also heard arguments on Monday from Harvard’s faculty union, which brought a related case.

Non-profits, state governments and other universities have filed amicus briefs on both sides of the case.

The Wall Street Journal