— A federal judge on Monday appeared skeptical of the federal government’s justification for freezing nearly $3 billion in research funding to Harvard, as lawyers for the two parties asked for a speedy decision in a high-stakes case that could determine the future of Harvard’s research enterprise.

Speaking in front of a packed Boston courtroom, United States District Judge Allison D. Burroughs pressed a lawyer for the Department of Justice to explain how steep funding cuts to Harvard’s research centers were connected to the White House’s stated goal of combatting antisemitism within the University.

“They’re not funding speech, they’re funding research. And you’re tying that research to speech,” Burroughs said to Michael K. Velchik ’12, who represented the government alone.

The nearly three-hour hearing saw University lawyers blast the Trump administration’s funding freeze as flagrantly unconstitutional and a violation of Harvard’s right to free speech. The administration’s campaign against Harvard “is a blatant, unrepentant violation of the First Amendment,” Steven P. Lehotsky, a lawyer for the University, said during oral arguments.

But Velchik argued that the funding cuts were a legitimate response to antisemitic incidents at Harvard. He pointed to the University’s widely panned response to pro-Palestine protests, including an encampment in Harvard Yard and the vandalism of the John Harvard statue last year, in the wake of Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks on Israel and the ensuing war in Gaza.

“Since then, students and organizations have sued Harvard for its failure to address antisemitism, donors have stopped giving to Harvard, citing the antisemitism,” Velchik said. “Law enforcement has brought criminal charges for assault and battery against Jewish students.”

Minutes later, Burroughs interjected. How is combatting antisemitism, she asked Velchik, connected to pulling research funding?

The federal government, Burroughs added, was justifying “protesting Jews and upholding American values while, on the other hand, taking steps that are very antithetical to those interests.”

Velchik also defended the government’s actions by arguing that federal agencies were simply exercising their right, as outlined in grant contracts, to redirect funds away from projects whose goals no longer align with government priorities.

But Burroughs said Velchik’s argument suggested that the federal government could cancel grants even if their termination violated the Constitution. The consequences for constitutional law of accepting such an argument, she added, would be “staggering.”

Anonymous wrote:Wait, the government’s lawyer is a Harvard grad??