First Circuit Panel Questions Trump Administration Move to Cut Harvard Funding

A First Circuit panel appeared skeptical of the Trump administration’s arguments regarding the cancellation of more than $2 billion in health research grants for Harvard University. The government used claims that the school was indifferent to campus antisemitism to justify freezing the funds, which a lower court previously ordered to be restored after finding the action unlawfully retaliatory.

During appellate arguments, judges pointed out that Harvard had settled private lawsuits concerning antisemitism in the past, suggesting the institution took steps to address the issue. U.S. Circuit Judge Sandra Lynch noted that the administration issued a termination announcement without prior findings or an investigation. The dispute stems from a lawsuit filed by Harvard in April 2025 after receiving a White House letter outlining conditions the university had to meet to avoid losing billions in congressional research funding.

The Dispute Over Research Grants and Legal Authority

The blocked funding supported various academic fields, including cancer research, infectious diseases, environmental health, neurological conditions like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, artificial intelligence, and military advancements. In September 2025, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs ruled that the government used antisemitism concerns as a smokescreen for an ideologically motivated assault on higher education, violating federal laws and the First Amendment.

During the appeal, DOJ Senior Counsel Michael Velchik argued that the district court lacked the authority to make the ruling under the Tucker Act. Pointing to a 2025 Supreme Court decision regarding National Institutes of Health funding, the government argued that challenges to grant determinations must be handled in the Court of Federal Claims rather than a federal district court.

Judicial Pushback and Parallel Legal Challenges

Judges on the appellate panel questioned whether the administration’s actions overstepped legal bounds. Circuit Judge Sandra Lynch highlighted that Title VI antidiscrimination regulations specifically cover the topics of preventing discrimination and combating antisemitism, which fall within the jurisdiction of federal district courts.

The panel heard arguments in both Harvard’s lawsuit and a parallel case brought by higher education unions, including the American Association of University Professors. The three-judge panel, which included U.S. Circuit Judges Sandra Lynch, Gustavo Gelpí, and Joshua Dunlap, did not issue an immediate ruling following the arguments.

What This Means for Affected Parties

The ongoing legal battle creates uncertainty for scientific researchers, academic staff, and students whose work depends on federal grant funding for critical health and technology projects. While lower court orders previously required the restoration of the frozen funds, ongoing appeals mean that the ultimate availability of these grants remains unsettled as the litigation moves through the federal court system.

Individuals or organizations facing sudden funding cuts or complex administrative actions involving federal grants may benefit from consulting with a qualified attorney to understand their rights and legal options.

This article is general information based on Courthouse News Service and court or agency records available at publication time. It is not legal advice; laws and deadlines differ by state and by case. Published October 6, 2026.