On Monday, with Harvard faculty, alumni, and other supporters looking on, lawyers for the University and the Trump administration met in federal appeals court in Boston for the latest round of arguments over research funding. In 2025, the White House froze more than $2.2 billion in federal grants from Harvard over allegations of antisemitism—cuts that U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs ruled unconstitutional last September, restoring the funding. The government appealed her ruling.
During the hearing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston, the government largely set aside the Title VI civil rights questions that have made up the bulk of its previous case for the cuts, focusing instead on jurisdiction. Representing the Trump administration, lawyer Michael Velchik ’12, J.D. ’16, argued before a panel of three judges— Sandra Lynch, Gustavo Gelpí Jr., and Joshua Dunlap—that because the dispute is over terminating individual federal contracts (rather than a blanket order), the case belongs in the Court of Federal Claims and lies outside the authority of U.S. district courts.
“Anything that specifically enjoins defendants from withholding the payments of money pursuant to terminated grants…the district court lacks jurisdiction over that remedy,” Velchik said.
Representing Harvard, Paul Clement, J.D. ’92, countered that as a constitutional matter, concerning the University’s First Amendment rights and a legal matter concerning the University’s Title VI compliance at issue, the case does not belong in claims court.
The administration’s counsel, he said, “concedes that there is jurisdiction over some part of this case, and they take no issue with the district court's jurisdiction…over the freeze letters…The only thing they seem to be contesting is jurisdiction over the termination letters. And I don’t think you can draw that distinction for purposes of the First Amendment or the Title VI claims.”
The jurisdictional argument isn’t a new one from the Trump administration, but it was the first time it was presented as the government’s primary argument, says Anurima Bhargava ’96, a former Department of Justice attorney who was the lead counsel for Crimson Courage, an alumni group supporting academic freedom, when the group filed an amicus brief in the case. In a phone interview after the hearing, Bhargava contended that sidestepping the Title VI claims undermines the administration’s justification for freezing funds in the first place.
“They did try to make an argument that there is a problem at Harvard with antisemitism,” she says. “It was pretty clear that was the lane you were taking, and you can’t just jump out of that lane now.”
Lynch, in particular, questioned Velchik intently about the Title VI and First Amendment stakes of the case, referring to the government’s previous argument.
“There was no investigation,” Lynch said. “There was simply an announcement. We’re terminating against that backdrop. Rather, it looks like the administration didn’t want to have to cope with what the law and the facts of this case presented under both Title VI and the Constitution.”
Gelpí, too, questioned Velchik on the adjusted framing of the case away from Title VI concerns.
“In the past administration, there were also two Title VI lawsuits filed against Harvard by the federal government, and they were settled, and without admitting liability or not, but Harvard was taking affirmative steps as parts of those settlements,” he said. “Doesn’t that impact somehow the course of this action?”
Before the hearing, Crimson Courage held a press conference outside the courthouse, with faculty members, alumni, and current students speaking about the day-to-day impact of the funding freezes and the stakes for higher education writ large.
“We are here for democracy itself,” said Patty Nolan ’80, the Crimson Courage co-chair and a city councilor in Cambridge, Mass. “It’s not hyperbole to say that. We know that if Harvard, with its resources, pays into this bullying administration, it is game over for the rest of higher education.”
Kirsten Weld, a professor of history and the co-chair of the Harvard chapter of the American Association of University Professors, agreed, noting the paralysis and confusion on campus when the government began freezing contracts for projects on topics like race, climate, and health equity in 2025, before terminating all government research funding.
“For college professors or students to feel a chilling effect on their speech or expression isn’t just a small inconvenience or distraction,” she said. “Rather, it strikes at the very heart of what we do…There can be no freedom of thought or expression if the government is deciding which ideas are valid, which subjects can or cannot be taught, or which subjects can or cannot be researched.
William “Bill” Hanage, an associate professor of epidemiology and the co-director of the Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics at the Harvard Chan School of Public Health, noted the permanent damage that even temporary stops in funding can have on scientific progress.
“I personally have had grants terminated, reinstated, then terminated again, and then, in the end, the money just evaporates,” he said. “The consequence of this has been that I’ve lost incredibly talented staff. By the time the money comes back, they’re gone.”
