Appeals court weighs judge's authority to restore Trump administration funding cuts to Harvard

A judge sided largely with Harvard University in September 2025, calling the Trump administration's antisemitism argument a "smokescreen" to go after the university and jeopardizing research work. BOSTON (AP) — A federal appeals court heard opposing arguments Monday over whether a judge had the authority to restore billions of dollars in funding that the Trump administration cut from Harvard University. District Judge Allison Burroughs ruled last year that the cuts amounted to illegal retaliation for Harvard’s rejection of the administration’s demands for changes to Harvard’s governance and policies.

The government had tied the move to Harvard’s delays in dealing with antisemitism, but the judge said the university’s federally backed research had little connection to discrimination against Jews. The ruling restored more than $2.6 billion in research funding for the wealthy Ivy League school. Though the money has resumed flowing, a Justice Department attorney told a three-judge panel of the First U.S.

Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday that Burroughs lacked the legal power to require the administration to pay it. The fight over the money was a contractual dispute that rightly belonged in a different court: the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, DOJ attorney Michael Velchik said.

That court, which traces its origins to the mid-1800s, handles lawsuits by citizens seeking money from the federal government. “The problem is that the district court lacked jurisdiction to order specific performance,” Velchik told the First Circuit. “That is the only thing that we’re complaining about here.” Velchik cited recent U.S.

Supreme Court rulings in support of his argument. Paul Clement, an attorney for Harvard, said the case was not a straightforward contractual dispute, but raised broader issues of retaliation and discrimination. The district court’s decision restoring the funding was the “perfect remedy” for the violations it found, he said.

“These are not claims that really depend on the contract in any particular way,” he said. First Circuit Judge Joshua Dunlap, a nominee of President Donald Trump, pressed Clement on whether Burroughs had in effect issued an order requiring payment and whether Harvard could make its broader legal claims without a contract. The other judges on the panel, Sandra Lynch and Gustavo Gelpi, were nominated by Democratic presidents.