This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
In Burroughs’ final ruling on Oct. 20, she permanently blocked the Trump administration from enforcing the funding freeze orders. She also barred the government from issuing new grant terminations or withholding “funding to Harvard in retaliation for the exercise of First Amendment rights,” or for alleged discrimination without following the proper steps under civil rights law.
The administration filed its appeal of the ruling with the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
White House spokesperson Liz Huston said in a statement Friday that Harvard “failed to protect its students, allowing harassment and discrimination to run rampant on its campus.” She added that the university “is not entitled to taxpayer funding, and we are confident the university will be held fully accountable for their failures.”
Meanwhile, a Harvard spokesperson said in an emailed statement Friday that the university remains “confident in our legal position.”
“The federal district court ruled in Harvard’s favor in September, reinstating critical research funding that advances science and life-saving medical breakthroughs, strengthens national security, and enhances our nation’s competitiveness and economic priorities,” the spokesperson said.
The appeal follows a monthslong legal battle between Harvard and the Trump administration.
At the end of March, President Donald Trump’s Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism announced it would review some $9 billion of Harvard’s grants and contracts. U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon at the time claimed the university failed “to protect students on campus from anti-Semitic discrimination” in the wake of 2024’s tumultuous season of pro-Palestinian protests.
Days later, the Trump administration sent Harvard a wide-ranging, unprecedented set of demands backed by threats to the university’s federal funding. Those demands included changing “biased” departments, governance reforms, and the elimination of all of Harvard’s diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
The administration followed up with even stricter demands that called for a viewpoint “audit” of Harvard’s students and faculty, and for the institution to reduce the power of faculty and administrators involved in activism. After Harvard President Alan Garber rebuked the Trump administration for overstepping its authority, the government froze over $2 billion in funding to the university.
The government has since waged a multi-agency financial and bureaucratic war against Harvard, threatening everything from its tax-exempt status to its ability to enroll international students to its control of its patents.
In Burroughs’ initial ruling in September, the judge questioned the Trump administration’s rationale in issuing grant termination letters. The federal government said it was trying to end institutionalized antisemitism at Harvard, but Burroughs concluded that a connection was “wholly lacking” between its actions and its official motivations.
The evidence didn’t “reflect that fighting antisemitism was Defendants’ true aim in acting against Harvard,” Burroughs wrote in her ruling. “Even if it were, combatting antisemitism cannot be accomplished on the back of the First Amendment.”
Since then, the government has reinstated most of the university’s frozen funding.
Over the months of litigation, several media reports have cited anonymous sources predicting an ever-nearing settlement between Harvard and the Trump administration. Trump himself said as much in September.
So far, a deal hasn’t materialized.