Harvard’s odds to win its Boston court battle look favorable—but the larger war is up in the air.
Legal analysts say Harvard has a strong case in arguing that the U.S. government improperly cut $2.2 billion in federal funding from the Ivy League school. The federal district judge presiding over a key hearing Monday appeared skeptical of the government’s arguments.
But President Trump is already threatening to appeal. He has many ways to inflict damage on the university meanwhile, and Harvard’s prospects—should the case end up at the Supreme Court—are less clear.
“Harvard can win in the courtroom but still lose almost everything it’s fought for,” said Allison Wu , the co-founder of the 1636 Forum, a Harvard alumni community named for the year the university was founded, who supports the university’s case.
Monday’s closely watched court hearing showcased an unprecedented clash between Harvard and the very U.S. government its graduates worked to create in 1776—and have helped shape in the 2½ centuries since.
The Trump administration, alleging the nation’s oldest university has strayed from its academic mission, fallen victim to “ideological capture” and tolerated antisemitism, cut off billions in federal research funds after Harvard rejected demands it says amount to a government takeover.
In arguments before Judge Allison Burroughs , an Obama appointee, Harvard mounted two main arguments. It asserted that the Trump administration imposed unconstitutional conditions on federal funds, requiring it to surrender its First Amendment rights to academic freedom to obtain a public benefit.
The university—in an argument that some legal analysts say could be more potent—also contended that the government declared the school in violation of civil-rights laws without affording it due process to address the allegations, or without following the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, which limits arbitrary action by federal agencies.
Michael McConnell , a professor at Stanford Law School and a former federal circuit judge, said Burroughs has a clear path to granting Harvard’s motion for summary judgment—meaning a decision declaring that no trial is necessary, because undisputed facts entitle one side to win.
“By far the most straightforward thing for the court to say is that this claim of antisemitism is a claim under Title VI” of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which sets out procedures to review allegations of discrimination in federally funded programs. The government, McConnell said, doesn’t even claim to have followed those procedures before finding Harvard in violation.
“That’s not to say that other claims might not kick in at a later stage,” he added.
Harvard says the government has ignored extensive steps it has taken to combat antisemitism on campus and broaden intellectual diversity in the months following the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel.
Burroughs, the judge, repeatedly pressed a Justice Department lawyer Monday while hearing arguments from both sides on why each deserved a swift victory. “You can’t violate the constitution to terminate a contract,” Burroughs said. “There are limits to what you can terminate and why and how.”
Trump indicated in a social-media post that he already expects a loss.
“When she rules against us, we will IMMEDIATELY appeal, and WIN,” Trump said on Truth Social Monday, calling the judge a “TOTAL DISASTER.”
Legal analysts anticipate the case will advance beyond the Boston court.
“It’s hard to imagine a district court judge in Boston ruling against Harvard, and the First Circuit is chockablock with Harvard grads, so if the administration prevails, that relief is likely to come from the Supreme Court,” said John Malcolm , director of the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
Four of the nine Supreme Court justices also hold Harvard degrees, but that proved of scant help in 2023, when the court struck down Harvard’s admissions formula, which used an applicant’s race as a plus factor to achieve a diverse undergraduate class. The court split 6-3—and its Harvard alumni divided evenly—over the case, which overruled precedents dating from 1978 to find that consideration of race in admissions was unconstitutional.
Malcolm, who himself attended Harvard Law School, said that while the specific legal issues differ, the funding case recalls the broader context of the admissions case, where Harvard prevailed at the district and First Circuit courts before reversal by the Supreme Court.
Harvard argues in the funding case that the federal government failed to follow the typical administrative processes used for terminating grants or adjudicating a discrimination case.
Robert Tsai , a law professor at Boston University, said he thinks Harvard’s administrative law arguments are in some ways the easier ones to make, given the unprecedented nature of the government’s actions. But the First Amendment arguments still matter, Tsai said, and he is skeptical the government can make it into a contract case as they tried to do Monday in court.
“It would be hard for me to expect the judge to put on such blinders given all the weighty actions,” Tsai said.
In addition to cutting federal research grants , the Trump administration has tried to block international students from enrolling at Harvard—which is tied up in a separate lawsuit—threatened its tax-exempt status and probed foreign funding donations.
Burroughs appeared skeptical Monday about the government’s contention that it canceled the funds over antisemitism, asking at one point why they didn’t have to go lab by lab to determine where antisemitic actions had taken place.
Michael Velchik , an attorney for the Justice Department arguing the government’s case, said Harvard has exhibited an indifference to antisemitism that applies to the entire university.
Burroughs later called it a “big stumbling block” that the executive branch could decide what is discriminatory or racist without any procedure.
Velchik, who appeared in court alone without other government lawyers, ended his arguments by pushing back on the contention that the government is anti-Harvard. “I reject that,” he said, saying the government wants a Harvard that is the best research institution in the world.
“How can they be the best research university,” Burroughs wondered, with the erasure of $2.2 billion in federal funding.
Write to Jess Bravin at Jess.Bravin@wsj.com and Sara Randazzo at sara.randazzo@wsj.com
