3 Takeaways From the Harvard v. Trump Appeal Hearings

Harvard University’s sprawling legal battle with the federal government is still grinding on.

The private Massachusetts university and the Trump administration met twice in federal appeals court this week as Harvard attempted to repel efforts to cut off billions in research funding and restrict international enrollment. While Harvard picked up wins in the lower courts last year, the Trump administration appealed those rulings.

On Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit heard arguments in Harvard’s case against the Department of Health and Human Services and other federal agencies over their attempt to cancel more than $2 billion in federal research funding last year for allegedly failing to address antisemitism on campus. U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs ruled last year that the cuts were unlawful and that the federal government violated the university’s First Amendment rights in withholding the funds.

Harvard returned to the First Circuit on Tuesday for another showdown with a federal agency. This time it was with the Department of Homeland Security, which has sought to prevent Harvard from enrolling international students. Harvard also prevailed in that case last year.

At issue is whether the administration can lawfully strip Harvard of federal funding and its ability to enroll international students, a fight that has emerged as a test of how far the White House can go in using the power of the federal government to pressure colleges to make changes it wants.

1. Feds Pivot to Procedure

The Trump administration used the cudgel of alleged antisemitism at Harvard to go after both its federal research funding and international student enrollment, arguing that the university didn’t sufficiently respond to Jewish students’ reports of discrimination. But on appeal, government lawyers focused on whether Burroughs had the authority to restore the funding.

“When you look specifically at the grant terminations, there’s no First Amendment right to money,” Justice Department lawyer Michael K. Velchik told a panel of judges Monday.

While Velchik accepted that federal district courts can hear Harvard’s First Amendment claims, he argued that the dispute over restoring terminated grants belonged in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Velchik’s argument hinged on the idea that restoring canceled research funding effectively amounted to enforcing federal contracts, which he said belonged in another court.

But Harvard attorney Paul Clement told the panel of three judges that the university was seeking relief that could not be provided by the Court of Federal Claims. He dismissed the notion that the issue at hand is contractual, arguing that the case is about Harvard’s free speech rights.

“These are not claims that really depend on the contract in any particular way,” Clement said. “They are claims to be free from retaliatory discrimination under the First Amendment.”

2. Judges Appear Skeptical

Government attorneys also continued to argue this week that the Trump administration has the authority to withhold funds because—in its view—Harvard has not done enough to address antisemitism on campus.

But the judges appeared unswayed by that argument. First Circuit Judge Sandra Lynch noted that the government acted against Harvard before proving claims of pervasive antisemitism on campus. (Separately, the Department of Justice sued Harvard in March over alleged antisemitism. A federal judge dismissed that case in August, finding the Trump administration had not demonstrated ongoing violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law that prohibits antisemitism.)

“The claim is that Harvard has been indifferent to antisemitism; there are no findings, there was no investigation, there was simply an announcement: ‘We’re terminating,’ against that backdrop,” Lynch said. “It rather looks like the administration didn’t want to have to cope with what the law and the facts of the case presented under both Title VI and the Constitution [say].”

She also questioned why the federal government did not use established Title VI processes to address concerns about alleged antisemitism at Harvard before taking punitive action. Lynch, a Clinton appointee, said that the federal government’s claims that Harvard discriminated against Jewish students and failed to adequately police antisemitism on campus are “the precise topics covered by Title VI.”

3. Trump Still Wants to Ban International Students

Despite a prior legal setback, the Trump administration appears intent on blocking Harvard from enrolling international students, who comprise nearly a quarter of its student body, per university data.

Trump’s proclamation that would have cut off international student enrollment at Harvard was blocked by Burroughs from taking effect in summer 2025 but also expired on its own in December. Justice Department lawyer Tiberius Davis said the federal government had held off on handing down a second order of the same nature because the judge’s order would prevent it from being enforced, but the idea is still in play.

Now the White House is looking to revive the ban if the courts clear the way.

“I can’t reveal exact conversations or with who, but I have been told by people with the White House that it’s likely he would reissue,” Davis said Tuesday.

But First Circuit Judge Gustavo A. Gelpí, a Biden appointee, questioned how such a policy would eliminate antisemitism when it would also bar students from Israel from attending Harvard.

In response, Davis said that the president or agency secretaries “could give exceptions for people from Israel or Jews who want to attend.”