A federal judge in Boston delivered a victory to Harvard University on Wednesday, ruling that the Trump administration unlawfully froze more approximately $2.5 billion in federal research grants in violation of the institution’s First Amendment rights and federal law.

U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs concluded that the administration “used antisemitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault on this country’s premier universities.” The ruling vacates all funding freezes and terminations made against Harvard on or after April 14, 2025, and permanently enjoins the government from future retaliation.

In March, President Trump formed a Federal Task Force to Combat Antisemitism and initiated a review of Harvard’s federal funding, citing concerns about antisemitism on campus following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks.

On April 3 and April 11, 2025, the government sent Harvard letters demanding changes as conditions for continued federal funding. The demands included:

• Commissioning external audits of the student body, faculty, and leadership for “viewpoint diversity”
• Abolishing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs
• Restructuring governance to reduce power held by students and untenured faculty
• Hiring a “critical mass” of new faculty to provide the government’s preferred ideological balance
• Reforming admissions practices to eliminate what the government deemed “ideological litmus tests”

The government sought the right to audit Harvard through at least 2028 and demanded a “senior secured first lien” on all Harvard assets as collateral for future compliance.

Harvard President Alan Garber rejected the government’s terms on April 14, 2025, stating that the demands “go beyond the lawful authority of this or any administration” and that “neither Harvard nor any other private university can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government.”

Within hours of Harvard’s rejection, the Federal Task Force announced a freeze on $2.2 billion in multi-year grants and $60 million in contracts. The freeze order explicitly cited “Harvard’s statement today” and characterized it as reflecting “the troubling entitlement mindset that is endemic in our nations most prestigious universities.”

The funding cuts affected critical research across multiple fields with no apparent connection to antisemitism. Terminated projects included:

• Tuberculosis consortium research involving multiple schools
• Development of radiation exposure measurement technology for NASA’s Artemis II lunar mission
• Research into Lou Gehrig’s disease by a recipient of the nation’s highest technological achievement honor
• Predictive models to help VA emergency physicians assess suicidal veterans
• Biological threat surveillance technology crucial for national security

Judge Burroughs noted that “there is no obvious link between the affected projects and antisemitism,” and that the funding freezes could harm the very people the defendants claimed to protect.

Judge Burroughs found that the Trump administration violated Harvard’s First Amendment rights in three distinct ways: retaliation, unconstitutional conditions, and unconstitutional coercion. The court determined that the government’s actions constituted impermissible retaliation for Harvard’s exercise of protected speech.

“The First Amendment is important and the right to free speech must be zealously guarded,” Burroughs wrote. “Free speech has always been a hallmark of our democracy”.

The judge emphasized that while combating antisemitism is a worthy goal, “combatting antisemitism cannot be accomplished on the back of the First Amendment.”

The court also found that the government violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by failing to follow proper procedures for terminating federal funding. The administration did not provide required notices, conduct hearings, or submit reports to Congress before cutting the grants.

Additionally, the court ruled that the funding freeze was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act because the government failed to provide a reasoned explanation for how terminating research grants would combat antisemitism.

The White House immediately announced plans to appeal the decision. Press Secretary Liz Huston dismissed Judge Burroughs as an “activist Obama-appointed judge” and maintained that Harvard “does not have a constitutional right to taxpayer dollars and remains ineligible for grants in the future.”

The administration argued that it had broad authority to terminate grants for policy reasons and that the cuts were justified by Harvard’s alleged failure to adequately address antisemitism.

This ruling comes as the Trump administration has targeted multiple elite universities over antisemitism concerns. Unlike Harvard, three other Ivy League institutions – Columbia, Brown, and Northwestern – reached settlements with the administration rather than fighting in court.

Columbia agreed to pay $220 million to regain federal funding, while Brown settled for $50 million. The administration is reportedly seeking a $1 billion settlement from UCLA and has demanded Harvard pay “no less than $500 million.”

Beyond restoring funding, Judge Burroughs issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the government from:

• Implementing any future funding freezes or terminations in retaliation for Harvard’s exercise of First Amendment rights
• Withholding payments on existing grants without proper Title VI compliance
• Refusing to award future grants based on discriminatory grounds without following proper procedures.