The ongoing legal dispute between Harvard University and the Trump administration reached a significant moment Monday in the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, part of a broader series of cases involving the parties. Central to the conflict is the administration’s effort to rescind over $2 billion in federal funding awarded to Harvard, a move that the university contends is retaliatory and unlawful.

The latest hearing came nearly 18 months after the initial funding cuts were frozen by a federal district court in April 2025. U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs had ruled that the Trump administration’s decision to withhold grants was improper, finding that the alleged justification—Harvard’s handling of antisemitism on campus—was not clearly connected to the funding for scientific research. Burroughs also noted that the move violated Harvard’s First Amendment and due process rights by imposing a sweeping suspension of funds after the university declined to agree to the administration’s proposed settlement terms.

The Trump administration has since appealed this ruling, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction and that the matter should have been heard in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Michael Velchik, senior counsel for the Department of Justice and a Harvard alumnus, told the appeals court panel that decisions about federal funding fall within the executive branch’s discretion and should not be construed as involving free speech issues. “When you look specifically at the grant terminations, there is no First Amendment right to money,” Velchik stated during the hearing, emphasizing that funding decisions are a separate administrative matter.

In response, Paul Clement, outside counsel representing Harvard and also a Harvard alumnus, defended the university’s position by maintaining that the funding cuts were punitive actions tied directly to Harvard’s refusal to comply with the administration’s demands. Clement argued that this constituted a First Amendment violation and was part of a broader campaign by the administration to exert pressure on the university.

The appellate panel, comprising Judges Sandra L. Lynch, Gustavo A. Gelpí, and Joshua D. Dunlap—a recent Trump appointee—engaged both lawyers with questions exploring legal precedents related to civil rights and free speech, pressing them to clarify how these principles apply in funding disputes and allegations of campus discrimination.

Outside the courtroom, Harvard community members demonstrated in support of the university, highlighting the broader implications of the funding cuts. Professors and students stressed the impact on academic research and campus life. Walter Willett, a public health professor, noted that the funding freeze had halted a longstanding nurses’ health study, while international students expressed ongoing anxiety over visa uncertainties. Kirsten Weld, a history professor and co-president of Harvard’s American Association of University Professors chapter, described the administration’s actions as creating a chilling effect on free expression within the university.

The appeals court is expected to issue a ruling in the coming months, which could determine whether this dispute advances toward the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, additional cases regarding the Trump administration’s policies on international student enrollment and allegations of antisemitism continue to unfold in Boston’s federal courts.