A judge concludes that Trump violated the law when he froze Harvard funding.

WashingtonThe rentrée The September 19th ruling is leaving Donald Trump with a string of judicial necks. This Wednesday, a federal judge concluded that the US president violated the law by freezing billions of dollars at Harvard as a means of pressure to interfere with its educational curriculum. Although the Trump administration will likely appeal the decision, it is an important legal victory for the university, which in June began secret negotiations with the White House to reach an agreement.

Although the decision by Judge Allison D. Burroughs of the Boston District Court concerns the funding freeze, the lawsuit filed by Harvard in April alleged that Trump had violated its rights to free speech, protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. Harvard accused the administration of leading a broad attack on the university "to influence and control academic decisions." The lawsuit also mentioned other Ivy League universities—the nation's elite centers, which Trump is now targeting—that have suffered funding cuts from the federal government. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.; Education Secretary Linda McMahon; Acting Administrator of the General Services Administration Stephen Ehikian; Attorney General Pam Bondi; and other government officials are the prime defendants in the university's filing.

"No government should dictate what a private university may teach, or who it may admit or hire, or what areas of study or research may be pursued," Harvard President Alan Garber wrote in an April message to the university community.

To freeze funding for the search, Trump accused Harvard of not having done enough to combat "anti-Semitism" on campus. In exchange for not enforcing the punitive measure, the president demanded several measures. He demanded, for example, that Harvard shut down all diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, as well as subject certain departments to an external audit.Harvard refused to comply with these demands. because she considered them to threaten her independence and academic freedom.

In her ruling, the judge notes that while Harvard had tolerated hateful behavior for too long, the Trump administration "used antisemitism as a smokescreen for a targeted and ideologically motivated attack on the nation's most prestigious universities." Burroughs says the freeze on Harvard's grants is retaliation against the university and violates her free speech rights protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The judge further explains that it is the courts' responsibility to protect academic freedom and "ensure that important pursuits are not unduly subjected to arbitrary and procedurally flawed grant terminations, even if doing so means facing the wrath of an administration committed to its agenda no matter the cost."

White House press secretary Liz Huston responded in a statement that they will appeal the ruling handed down by an "Obama-appointed activist judge," and stated that Harvard "has no constitutional right to taxpayer money and remains ineligible for future grants." In contrast, Harvard President Alan Garber, in a message to the university community, welcomed the outcome. Garber said the ruling "validates the arguments in defense of the university's academic freedom, critical scientific inquiry, and the fundamental principles of American higher education."