The lawyers of the Harvard University will argue in the federal court on Monday that the freeze of more than $ 2 billion in grants and contracts by the federal government is illegal and should be reversed.

In filing in the US district court in Boston, Harvard’s lawyers say Federal funding deduction There is a threat to significant research in medical, science and technology imposed by the Trump administration. The purpose of the school’s lawsuit is to prevent federal funding to the Trump administration “as leverage to gain control in Harvard.”

The Trump administration has stated that it has stopped money as Harvard failed to address antisemitism in the campus and violated the title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

The hearing is expected to last only one day. Harvard Judge, Elison D. Asking Baroz, for a summary decision in the hope of intensifying the case, although it is not clear that he can rule at that request. And, whatever way she decides, legal experts spoke with the NPR, who soon does not expect a complete resolution, given the possibility that a ruling appeal will be made on both sides.

While Harvard is the only school in the court, colleges and university across the country are looking closely at the proceedings. Dozens of other institutions have also frozen millions of federal grants.

Jodi Ferris, a lawyer from Indiana, says, “In the entire region, all over the region, institutions believe that whatever happens in this case will have a really deep impact.”

“Some Midwestern, about small private colleges, is nothing different about Harvard University,” says Ferris. “Everyone is watching and is worrying that the federal government is demanding to control the higher education sector.”

Harvard’s argument

In court documents, Harvard’s lawyers make many arguments. The first is that the administration violated Administrative procedure actKnown as APAs, which states that federal agencies cannot suddenly change procedures without any reason. They argue that the Congress has established procedures for “cancellation of federal funding based on the concerns of discrimination, which the government did not follow.

He argues that the government did not follow the appropriate process while dealing with the alleged violation of the Federal Civil Rights Act. This argument is a common complaint of groups sued the Trump administration, with more 100 lawsuits citing alleged violation In the APA, according to the non -profit Justi security, which tracks the legal challenges for the action of the Trump administration.

Harvard also argues that there is no relation between alleged antisementism and closure of federal medical and scientific research.

Harvard’s complaint stated, “The government has not identified any rational relations between the concerns of antisementism and medical, scientific, technology and other researches, which aims to save American life, promote American security, maintain American security, maintain American security and maintain America’s position as a global leader in innovation.”

The complaint also alleges that the government is violating the first amendment, which says, “The government is not allowed to interfere in the speech of private actors to carry forward its vision of ideological balance.” ,

Harvard claims that the government is interfering in its educational freedom by telling the university how to hire, how to accept students and demand access to students files without subponus.

Argument of Trump Administration

The Trump administration accused Harvard of failing to protect the Jewish students. After Harvard refused to follow a list of demands, Joint Task Force to deal with anti-JewishA multi -level group within the administration, which includes representatives of the Departments of Justice, Education and Health and Human Services announced that the amount was cold.

Herrison Fields, a spokesman at the White House, said, “Gravy train of federal aid to institutions such as Harvard, which enriches its gross overpade bureaucrats with dollars from struggling American families, is ending,” a spokesman of the White House, a spokesman of the White House, said Harrison Fields said that the cut was stated in a statement when the cut was made. “Taxpayer funds are a privilege, and Harvard fails to meet the basic conditions required to reach that privilege.”

The government argues that Harvard did not follow the federal law – which includes allegedly promoting antismitism in the premises and engaging in illegal discrimination through DEI efforts. As a result, the government argues, the university is not entitled to these research dollars.

“The Trump administration is looking at Harvard and saying,” You fail to do things, “Jessica Lewinson says,” A professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. “You failed to protect the Jewish students. You failed to follow a federal law. And as a result of those failures, we have to do something in turn. We get to cut the federal spigot of funding.” ,

And while Lewinson and other legal experts said that there is federal power, the question for the court would be: was the Trump administration about using that power properly?

Bate research

The case supports more than 900 research projects in more than $ 2 billion at stake and its colleagues. Funds of grants that include the impact of school closure on military research and mental health for prevention of Alzheimer’s prevention, cancer treatment, national security.

Kari Nadeu Harvard V is a professor, physician and researcher at the school of Public Health, studying ways to reduce the risk of close-letted allergies in infants. When the government canceled its grant, she says that it lost about $ 12 million to study.

“We have had to stop our studies and our work,” Nadeu says, “and this is really a huge impact for all. Not only us, but the people we serve, the teams we work with, the trainees we train, as well as many employees across the country.”

He is particularly concerned with families who signed up to participate in a clinical trial, which was to last for seven years. “When you take a therapy away from people, and especially in this case, children, and you put them at risk for fatal disease like food allergies, this is a safety issue,” she says. “These families can be put in additional damage.”

The future of his project may come down to the result of this case. She says that she is carefully optimistic.

Legal experts suggested that the case would not end almost with this hearing.

“Will Harvard win in Boston? It has a good chance,” says Ferris. “But is this the matter going to resolve? It is probably not the case. It will go for an appeal, it will go to the Supreme Court. So a win, while it will be welcomed in colleges, will not feel like the end of the story.”