{shortcode-400afbe54caca092ac80e2d7daf6b82d85ca69b2}
Wednesday’s government shutdown could stall Harvard’s federal funding lawsuit, halting the case before District Judge Allison D. Burroughs can enter a final judgment — and before President Donald Trump can file the appeal he has promised.
Burroughs ruled in Harvard’s favor last month, requiring the return of roughly $2.7 billion in federal grants and contracts that the Trump administration froze in the spring. But she told both sides to hammer out implementation details before she entered a judgment. Harvard and the Trump administration filed a joint report on Sept. 19 telling the court that no disputes remained, but they asked for a delay through Oct. 3 to work through compliance.
The administration cannot appeal the ruling until Burroughs’ decision is finalized.
After Congress hit a midnight deadline without passing an interim spending bill, the Department of Justice lost funding and paused work on most civil litigation. Trump administration lawyers asked Burroughs to pause the Harvard case’s schedule, saying its attorneys are “prohibited from working” during the shutdown.
The request came just two days before the parties were set to update the court on whether any final issues remained before judgment.
The shutdown, sparked by a partisan fight over Affordable Care Act subsidies, has already furloughed thousands of federal workers and is expected to last at least through the end of the week, if not longer. If Burroughs grants the government’s request, all deadlines will be extended day-for-day with the length of the shutdown.
Burroughs’ order began to take effect last month as both sides moved to implement her ruling. Within two weeks, the Department of Health and Human Services released $46 million to Harvard, covering nearly 200 grants that were frozen or terminated in April. It is unclear whether those payments will continue under the current shutdown.
Harvard did not oppose the Justice Department’s request for a stay. But the American Association of University Professors’ Harvard chapter, whose case against the funding freeze has been joined with Harvard’s, did — though the government’s filing did not say why, and a representative for the faculty group did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
A Harvard spokesperson also did not respond to a request for comment Wednesday evening.
Andrew M. Sellars, a professor at Boston University School of Law, said shutdowns often make it “pretty difficult to even get the Department of Justice to answer their phone,” and that courts usually grant delay requests when both sides consent.
“Here it’s interesting as the AAUP’s chapter opposed the motion,” he wrote in a text message, “so we should see some discussion from Judge Burroughs before granting or denying it.”
The timeline of the case, however, could become moot if it ends first in a settlement. On Tuesday, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office that the White House had “reached a deal” with Harvard, though he later back-tracked and said it was not finalized. Offering few details, he claimed the agreement would direct $500 million toward trade schools “run by Harvard.”
So far, Harvard officials have offered little about the existence, status, or terms of any deal. On Sunday, Harvard Corporation senior fellow Penny S. Pritzker ’81 told a Crimson reporter that the $500 million figure was coming from the Trump administration and that she had “absolutely no idea” how the talks, which began in June, would ultimately end.
While the Trump administration has started the process of complying with Burroughs’ ruling, his administration has also kept up the pressure on Harvard. On Monday, the Department of Health and Human Services opened suspension and debarment proceedings against the University, a rare and drastic measure that could cut off its access to federal grants and contracts for several years.
—Staff writer Dhruv T. Patel can be reached at dhruv.patel@thecrimson.com. Follow him on X @dhruvtkpatel.
