{shortcode-d6599c89e5d478295f89c38d1a9673aa863fc48f}

Lawyers for Harvard will present oral arguments against the Trump administration’s multibillion-dollar research funding cuts at a federal courthouse in Boston’s Seaport district on Monday morning.

The hearing comes months after the University first sued the Trump administration in April. Its lawsuit takes issue with the administration’s decision to condition Harvard’s federal funding on a host of conditions, including external oversight of hiring and admissions processes.

Since April, both parties have asked a federal judge for summary judgment, a process that allows the judge overseeing the case to rule without a trial. On Monday, Allison D. Burroughs, the judge deciding the case, will hear oral arguments from both sides.

The hearing marks a critical moment in the University’s high-stakes clash with the White House. Though Burroughs is unlikely to rule from the bench, her questions and reactions to arguments could give an indication of whether Harvard will keep the nearly $3 billion in federal funding on the table.

In court filings, Harvard has argued that the Trump administration violated the First Amendment by demanding changes in exchange for federal dollars. The University also contends that the White House sidestepped the proper procedures for pausing funding.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, has argued that the cuts were justified by the University’s alleged failure to combat antisemitism and racial discrimination against white people on campus. And the government has said that the case should be heard in the Court of Federal Claims, which considers monetary claims against the federal government.

Defendants in the case include 11 federal agencies that cut funding to Harvard — including the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Defense — as well as their top officials.

It’s also possible that a resolution to the case will take place outside the courtroom. Harvard officials have been in talks with the White House, but the negotiations have yet to bear fruit, despite Donald Trump’s claim in June that the parties were within a week of announcing a deal. And the Trump administration has ratcheted up the pressure against Harvard with threats to its accreditation, subpoenas for international student records, and an aggressively worded finding that Harvard violated civil rights law.

As lawyers prepare to face off in court, here’s what to know about Harvard’s battle to wrestle back its federal funding.

Why is Harvard suing the Trump administration?

In early April, Harvard President Alan M. Garber ’76 received a letter from the Trump administration that contained sweeping demands, including audits of entire schools, academic programs, and faculty and student bodies for “viewpoint diversity” — as well as structural reforms designed to shift power to sympathetic faculty and administrators.

Though the University had been working for months to avoid conflict with the White House, the letter forced Garber’s hand, pushing him to issue a scathing public letter rebuking the demands as coercive and unlawful.

Hours later, the Trump administration announced a freeze on more than $2 billion in federal grants to Harvard researchers. Within weeks, hundreds of millions of dollars in additional cuts arrived, alongside a vow from administration officials that Harvard would no longer receive federal grants in the future.

To justify the funding halt, the Trump administration has cited allegations of racial discrimination in admissions and antisemitism on campus. But Harvard has argued that it has taken steps to address antisemitism — and that the cuts are retaliatory and unlawful.

The funding freeze has already had serious consequences for Harvard. Grant terminations have forced researchers to suddenly halt projects, including those studying treatments for cancer and rare diseases; layoffs have roiled many of Harvard’s schools; and a cost-cutting campaign has seen hiring freezes and pauses on wage increases.

Harvard’s increasingly precarious financial situation has prompted its leaders to push for an accelerated decision in its lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s funding cuts. In early June, University lawyers asked Burroughs, the judge overseeing the case, to bypass a full trial and issue a deadline by Sept. 3.

That is the deadline set by the federal government for Harvard to clear all financial obligations tied to the first round of canceled grants, and the University’s lawyers feared the administration would not return canceled funds to researchers past that date.

The Trump administration fired back two weeks later, asking Burroughs for a judgment against Harvard. Government lawyers argued that the case should be heard in the Court of Federal Claims. That refiling, if ordered, could delay a ruling in the case by months.

Harvard’s lawsuit has drawn widespread support from across the political spectrum. More than 12,000 alumni, 21 states, and two dozen universities have filed amicus briefs backing the University in its legal effort to wrestle back its federal funding.

Though it is unlikely that Burroughs will make a ruling in the Monday hearing, the oral arguments will give Harvard and the government the chance to make their cases in front of her for the first time since April.

What is Harvard’s argument?

Harvard argues that the Trump administration violated the First Amendment when it conditioned the University’s funding on “viewpoint-based conditions.”

Several legal experts have said that Harvard’s First Amendment arguments are likely to fare well in court. Michael J. Gerhardt, a law professor at the University of North Carolina, called the Trump administration’s demands “egregiously illegal” in an April interview with The Crimson.

Lawyers for the University also argue that the government failed to follow the proper procedure for canceling federal grants, as defined under Title VI of the Civil Rights Law.

Terminations under Title VI typically involve a hearing, two formal notices, a 30-day pause, and a determination that no voluntary agreement can be reached — none of which were granted to the University prior to the $2.2 billion freeze in April.

Harvard’s lawsuit also rests on a third law: the Administrative Procedure Act, which provides the procedural framework for any regulatory action taken by a federal agency, including revoking federal funding grants to universities. Harvard contends that the administration’s actions were “arbitrary and capricious,” qualities prohibited by the APA.

Several of the federal agencies who canceled grants to Harvard accused the University of failing to properly address antisemitism on campus. Many cited a report by Harvard’s task force on combatting antisemitism and anti-Israeli bias, which reported that many Jewish and Israeli students on campus faced social isolation and discrimination.

But the University argues that it has taken significant steps toward curbing antisemitism on campus, including by formalizing protest policies and investing in academic offerings on Jewish and Israeli history.

In a recent filing, Harvard also said that a 2,000-page administrative record filed by the federal government last week “does not document any meaningful investigation by the Government into antisemitism on Harvard’s campus.” Instead, the University argued, the report’s contents — including internal emails and memos — reveal an effort to slash funds that skipped on the necessary procedures.

The record also showed that the Department of Government Efficiency, the government cost-cutting group, played a previously unreported role in terminating federal awards to Harvard.

What’s at stake on Monday?

Burroughs is unlikely to make any final rulings from the bench on Monday, given the complexity of the case. But her line of questioning could provide a glimpse into sticking points she identifies with either parties’ arguments.

With billions of dollars on the line, Burroughs will have to decide if she has the jurisdiction to oversee the case, and whether a trial is necessary — or could instead be resolved through a summary judgement.

In past Harvard-related cases, Burroughs has not hesitated to issue preliminary rulings in Harvard’s favor.

When the University sued the Trump administration again, this time over its threats to international students, Burroughs granted Harvard a preliminary injunction within weeks. That ruling blocked the administration’s efforts to end the University’s enrollment of international students and ban them from entering the U.S.

Even if Burroughs rules in Harvard’s favor, its legal battle with the Trump administration would be far from over. Lawyers for the federal government would be likely to appeal her decision, escalating the case to the First Circuit Court of Appeals and possibly as far as the Supreme Court.

A final ruling could take months, if not years, as the case winds its way through the courts. But lawyers for the University have argued that, without swift relief, the damage to scientific research may be irreversible.

—Staff writer Matan H. Josephy contributed reporting.

—Staff writer William C. Mao can be reached at william.mao@thecrimson.com. Follow him on X @williamcmao.

—Staff writer Laurel M. Shugart can be reached at laurel.shugart@thecrimson.com. Follow them on X @laurelmshugart.