Federal Courthouse, Boston MA
On September 3, 2025, Federal District Court Judge Allison D. Burroughs decided two cases in favor of Harvard and against the Trump Administration. As a result, Burroughs’ 84-page decision lifted the block on Harvard’s federal research grants. The Trump Administration vowed to appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
On April 14, 2025, the Trump Administration froze $2.2 billion in federal research grants and $600 million in federal contracts held by Harvard. In the days following that order, various federal agencies sent Harvard stop work orders on specific research grants.
On April 11th, three days after the freeze, a group of organizations including the American Association of University Professors (“AAUP”), the AAUP–Harvard Faculty Chapter (“AAUP-Harvard”), the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (“UAW”), the Harvard Graduate Students Union (“HGSU–UAW”), and Harvard Academic Workers (“HAW–UAW”) sued the Trump Administration. Harvard filed its own lawsuit on April 21st.
All the parties filed motions for summary judgement, asking the Judge to decide the case without lengthy discovery or a full trial.
The decision will provide a valuable precedent as other schools decide whether to follow Columbia and Brown in settlements or follow Harvard and litigate.
The government argued that because these cases are about money, they should be heard by the Federal Court of Claims, which primarily handles monetary claims against the US government, rather than a Federal District Court, which has broader jurisdiction. Judge Burroughs found that the First Amendment claims and allegations that the government had failed to follow procedures required under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act can be decided by District Courts, rejecting the federal government’s argument.
The government additionally argued that the organizational plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the freeze orders. Judge Burroughs disagreed and found that the organizations had been harmed.
The government claimed that the letters were “the starting bid in a negotiation that Harvard has rejected” rather than a final agency action reviewable under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The judge ruled that the case was ready for judicial review.
Harvard claimed that the government was retaliating for exercising its First Amendment rights and that the government placed content-related conditions on Harvard’s rights.
In a victory for Harvard, the judge blocked the government from implementing or instituting orders freezing the grant funding to Harvard and letters terminating federal research grants.
Burroughs wrote that Harvard has been “plagued” by antisemitism in recent years and should have done more to deal with the issue. But she found that there is “little connection between the research affected by the grant terminations and antisemitism.”
“In fact, a review of the administrative record makes it difficult to conclude anything other than that Defendants used antisemitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault on this country’s premier universities, and did so in a way that runs afoul of the APA, the First Amendment and Title VI,” Burroughs wrote. “Further, their actions have jeopardized decades of research and the welfare of all those who could stand to benefit from that research, as well as reflect a disregard for the rights protected by the Constitution and federal statutes.”
White House assistant press secretary Liz Huston told the press that the Trump administration will appeal the decision.
“Just as President Trump correctly predicted on the day of the hearing, this activist Obama-appointed judge was always going to rule in Harvard’s favor, regardless of the facts,” Huston said. “To any fair-minded observer, it is clear that Harvard University failed to protect their students from harassment and allowed discrimination to plague their campus for years. Harvard does not have a constitutional right to taxpayer dollars and remains ineligible for grants in the future. We will immediately move to appeal this egregious decision, and we are confident we will ultimately prevail in our efforts to hold Harvard accountable.”
The court decision called the Trump administration’s actions part of a “government-initiated onslaught” against the school that was “much more about promoting a governmental orthodoxy in violation of the First Amendment than about anything else, including fighting antisemitism.”
In June, Harvard had filed a separate lawsuit before Judge Burroughs, challenging the Trump Administration’s attempt to block international students from attending Harvard. The judge decided that case in favor of Harvard in a separate decision issued in June.
Finally, separate from this litigation, the Trump Administration is raising the issue of whether Harvard should keep the patent rights for its federally funded research or if the patents must be assigned to the government.
Harvard President Alan M. Garber issued a statement to the Harvard community that included:
“Our principles will guide us on the path forward. We will continue to champion open inquiry and the free exchange of ideas, and to build a community in which all can thrive. I look forward to working with you in the months ahead as we join together, with renewed commitment, in the pursuit of excellence in teaching, learning and research.”
Cornell Impact
Although the Trump Administration has not made public demands of Cornell, there are press reports that private negotiations have been ongoing. Reportedly, a $100 million settlement has been discussed with Cornell. Harvard’s new victory will likely strengthen Cornell’s hand in the negotiations.
Importantly, Judge Burroughs found that the AAUP and labor unions have standing to sue over Trump research freezes. This opens the door to the Cornell AAUP or recognized unions filing a separate legal challenge even if Cornell itself prefers a less litigious route.
