SoylentNews

upstart [soylentnews.org] writes:

████ # This file was generated bot-o-matically! Edit at your own risk. ████

for jan

Harvard beats Trump as judge orders US to restore $2.6 billion in funding [arstechnica.com]:

Text settings

A federal judge sided with Harvard University in its lawsuit against the Trump administration, ordering the US government to unfreeze about $2.6 billion in funding.

The judge's ruling also criticized the Supreme Court for issuing orders that seem to set precedents aside "without much explanation." Like various other rulings against the Trump administration, the Harvard case will be appealed and could end up at the highest court.

The Trump administration said it pulled Harvard's funding because of antisemitism at the university. But "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," US District Judge Allison Burroughs wrote in yesterday's ruling [courtlistener.com].

The US government's actions violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the First Amendment, Burroughs wrote. While Harvard's own statements say it "has been plagued by antisemitism in recent years and [it] could (and should) have done a better job of dealing with the issue," there is "little connection between the research affected by the grant terminations and antisemitism," Burroughs wrote.

The government froze $2.2 billion [arstechnica.com] in funding on April 14 and pulled additional funding in subsequent orders. Harvard sued the Trump administration [arstechnica.com] in the District of Massachusetts in an attempt to reverse the funding cuts. Rulings in the district can be appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit.

Burroughs said that letters the government sent to Harvard failed to "acknowledge the reforms and commitments Harvard had already made," did not "identify any specific instances of antisemitism on Harvard's campus," and did not "specify how Harvard failed to respond to any such acts of antisemitism in a way that violated Title VI [of the Civil Rights Act of 1964]."

Judge: SCOTUS has been vague and unhelpful

Burroughs, an Obama appointee, wrote a footnote addressing Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch's recent comments that lower courts may not "defy" the high court's rulings. "Whatever their own views, judges are duty-bound to respect 'the hierarchy of the federal court system created by the Constitution and Congress,'" Gorsuch wrote in an opinion [supremecourt.gov] in another case, citing several examples of district courts allegedly not following Supreme Court precedent.

Burroughs' footnote said that district courts try to follow Supreme Court rulings, but "the Supreme Court's recent emergency docket rulings regarding grant terminations have not been models of clarity, and have left many issues unresolved."

"This Court understands, of course, that the Supreme Court, like the district courts, is trying to resolve these issues quickly, often on an emergency basis, and that the issues are complex and evolving," Burroughs wrote. "Given this, however, the Court respectfully submits that it is unhelpful and unnecessary to criticize district courts for 'defy[ing]' the Supreme Court when they are working to find the right answer in a rapidly evolving doctrinal landscape, where they must grapple with both existing precedent and interim guidance from the Supreme Court that appears to set that precedent aside without much explanation or consensus."

White House blasts “activist Obama-appointed judge”

White House spokesperson Liz Huston issued a statement saying the government will immediately appeal the "egregious" ruling. "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, according to the Harvard Crimson [thecrimson.com].

Huston also said that "Harvard does not have a constitutional right to taxpayer dollars and remains ineligible for grants in the future" in a statement quoted by various media outlets. "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," she said.

Harvard President Alan Garber wrote [harvard.edu] in a message on the university's website that the "ruling affirms Harvard's First Amendment and procedural rights, and validates our arguments in defense of the University's academic freedom, critical scientific research, and the core principles of American higher education."

Garber noted that the case is not over. "We will continue to assess the implications of the opinion, monitor further legal developments, and be mindful of the changing landscape in which we seek to fulfill our mission," he wrote.

Original Submission