Federal Fining Freeze at Harvard University remain well in the summer after the hearing of the first court

Boston
Cnn
–

The Trump administration and Harvard University met for the first time on Monday in a courtroom in Boston, as the country's oldest and richest college is fighting for the restoration of billions of dollars of federal money that were frozen by the white house in a sparring match about political ideology in American university education.

In the 15-minute hearing, the US judge Allison Burroughs, a representative of Barack Obama, set for oral arguments in the case on July 21, which means that Harvard continues to work far into the summer, without the grants and means of protection that is decisive for ongoing research-unless its decision is voluntary.

Harvard decided not to ask the judge for an immediate order to restore the financing, and instead asked for a final decision on an accelerated schedule.

While Harvard's lawsuit about the freezing of 2.2 billion US dollars in federal research financing in the ongoing struggle between the White House and the University Formation marked an escalation, warns warn that the operations are much higher.

“How long can we go out without investing at universities that produce innovations in terms of health or progress that help us to deal with climate change or psychological insights in order to help our communities?” Asked Osamudia James, a legal professor at the University of North Carolina, the specialties of which the administrative law includes.

“Or how long can we survive the erosion of democratic norms, erosion against freedom of expression … the independence of the universities?

Harvard's lawsuit was submitted a week ago, days after the Trump administration announced that the grants of billions of dollars after the White House were submitted to a breakdown of the discussions about combating anti -Semitism on campus. The administration has recently cited discrimination investigations to cover up funds for other universities – including Cornell and Northwestern – and sent letters to 60 universities to warn them of potential punishment if they do not “protect Jewish students on campus”.

Harvard's complaint lists the Ministry of Health and Human Services, National Institute of Health, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Justice, General Services Administration, Department of Energy, National Science Foundation, Department of Defense and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

The university not only argues that the attempt by the government to force and control Harvard… fundamental principles of the initial adaptation ”, but also the violation of Washington in 1946 against the administrative guidelines of Arcane 1946. In particular, the administrative procedure“ demands this court to keep illegal and any final final To stop the authorities that “is arbitrary, moody, a misuse or in other ways is not in accordance with the law”, says the Harvard lawsuit.

Before submitting his lawsuit, Harvard commissioned two lawyers with deep Republican connections: William Burck worked as a special advisor of President George W. Bush and recently helped the Paul Weiss law firm to raise an executive regulation against the firm. Robert Hur was appointed special consultant to examine the handling of the classified documents by the former President Joe Biden, and described Biden as “a personable, well -intentioned, older man with a bad memory”.

“What these boys bring is a solid conservative reference, people who are known to the right,” said CNN Legal Analyst Jennifer Rodgers, lecturer at the Columbia Law School. “This gives them a better team to negotiate a settlement that is an advantage Harvard because these boys have credibility in the Trump administration.”

The lawyers of the Trump administration did not respond to the allegations in the lawsuit, but the Press spokesman for the White House, Karoline Leavitt, said on Tuesday: “The president made it clear that Harvard has been able to lose their own funds that are not followed by federal law, and we expect all universities and universities that obey the federal law.”

The Administrative Procedure Act known as the APA was passed after the Second World War when the government had difficulty managing the expansion of federal authorities under President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The APA does not require any decision that a government agency has made, but the agencies should not suddenly change the procedures for no reason. Harvard argues that the suspension of the medical and scientific research financing of the federal government and the fight against anti -Semitism makes no sense and increases official procedures without warning. In addition, Harvard demands that the 1964 Civil Rights Act give the government the opportunity to present violations before taking the federal money away.

After the lawsuit had been submitted last Monday, the deputy spokesman for the White House, Harrison Fields, said in a statement: “The Federal Aid's Saucer Zug for institutions such as Harvard, who enrich their roughly overpayed bureaucrats with tax money from the end of the fighting American families.”

Michael Gerhardt, professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law, said that he believes that the case is completely negotiated and lasts at least one year. And no matter who wins in the end, American taxpayers are paid in the end.

“Trump doesn't have to spend a cent in this case. The American taxpayers do it,” he said. “Trump can throw all of his administrative lawyers on her and Harvard has to pay for everything, but Harvard's complaint has asked the reimbursement of her legal costs. So if Harvard wins, the administration must finally pay.”

Since the Trump government is approaching its 100th day this week, more than 160 further complaints have given alleged violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, from complaints about international students who faced deportations and released federal workers to access transgender students to sports.

The judicial challenges for the finer points of the federal law often take years to meet the solution, and Harvard asked the judge to speed up the process to avoid damage to their programs.

“While Harvard carefully tries to alleviate the effects of these funding cuts, critical research efforts are reduced or even terminated,” the university lawyers wrote in a court registration on Wednesday in which an accelerated hearing was asked.

Harvard could seek an injunction for freezing the federal government for the financing of the federal government, said Ray Brescia, professor at the Albany Law School in New York.

“No matter whether it is for the reasons for the first change or on the procedure, the type of administrative law problems, I think it's a slam dark,” said Brescia about the strength of Harvard's case.

James, the professor of North Carolina, said Harvard's case was on a strong legal basis, although this does not ensure that this is not a victory.

“I think we are increasingly seeing federal courts that push these power contracts back,” she said. “The result will not necessarily be about whether the judge is of the opinion that the administration is right in the merits. It could only be a matter of being the right procedures required for agencies to take these types of measures, and they must follow them.”

Nevertheless, the question of how much the APA can restrict the White House is almost certain that the Supreme Court is decided.

The legal professor Charles Nesson wrote in Harvard Crimson last week: “In this case, it is the freedom of a university to think, teach and rule – without fear of political retribution. It is about whether federal dollar becomes a leash to force conformity. It is about whether students, faculties and researchers continue to work on this university are not of a principle, of a principle, not of principle.