Trump Administration Vows to Appeal Ruling in Federal Funding Lawsuit

Updated September 4, 2025, at 12:13 a.m.

The Trump administration will appeal a federal court’s ruling issued earlier Wednesday that struck down its multibillion-dollar freeze on Harvard’s research funding, a White House spokesperson confirmed Wednesday evening.

The statement came just hours after U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs issued a resounding decision in Harvard’s favor, declaring the funding freeze unconstitutional and blocking the administration from reimposing similar conditions.

Now the Trump administration could send the case through a lengthy appeal process or attempt to leapfrog directly to the Supreme Court for an expedited review, according to several legal experts. The first path would first send the case to a circuit court with a majority of Democratic appointees, but the case is likely to eventually end up before the right-leaning Supreme Court unless the administration and Harvard reach a settlement outside the courtroom.

President Donald Trump had previously suggested that Burroughs, an Obama appointee who has sided with Harvard several times before, would rule in the lawsuit without fully considering its facts — though legal experts largely believed Harvard had a strong case.

After a hearing for the case in July, Trump vowed on Truth Social to “IMMEDIATELY appeal, and WIN” if Burroughs ruled against him, lambasting her for being a “total ‘loss’ for People of our Country.”

White House spokesperson Liz Huston reiterated Trump’s accusations in a statement to The Crimson.

“Just as President Trump correctly predicted on the day of the hearing, this activist Obama-appointed judge was always going to rule in Harvard’s favor, regardless of the facts,” she said. “We will immediately move to appeal this egregious decision, and we are confident we will ultimately prevail in our efforts to hold Harvard accountable.”

Huston did not respond to questions about where and when the administration intends to file its appeal.

After Burroughs’ ruling, the White House has several legal paths for its appeal and all will likely involve a request for a stay on the Wednesday order, according to several legal experts.

The White House can file a notice of appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, where it is expected to ask for any emergency stay that would re-freeze Harvard’s funds while the case is pending. If that fails, it can press forward with a full appeal in the First Circuit.

Or, as it has done in similar disputes, the administration could bypass the appeals court altogether and seek emergency relief directly from the Supreme Court, asking the justices to block Burroughs’ order on the Court’s so-called “shadow docket.”

If the Trump administration pursues the former approach, Harvard’s legal victory on Wednesday appears secure — for now. Several legal experts said the First Circuit is unlikely to grant the Trump administration's expected request to stay Burroughs’ ruling while the case is on appeal.

Former Department of Health and Human Services general counsel Samuel R. Bagenstos said he doubted the First Circuit would disturb Burroughs’ decision.

“This is a really careful and well-reasoned opinion, and I don't think the Court of Appeals will be persuaded that she got it wrong,” he said.

In February, the First Circuit denied a similar request in a case brought by Democrat-led states after a Rhode Island district judge blocked the administration from enforcing an Office of Management and Budget directive attempting to halt congressionally approved grants and loans. The appellate judges found the government failed to show it would be “irreparably injured” without a stay and that a pause was contrary to the public interest.

That case, like Harvard’s, centered on sweeping executive efforts to withhold funding without following standard procedures outlined under the Administrative Procedure Act. The First Circuit issued its ruling on the stay just 21 days after the lower court’s decision, indicating that the emergency motion route can move quickly — often within a week or two.

But a full appeal is a longer process. According to Harvard Law School professor Noah R. Feldman ‘92, the appeals could hear arguments later this fall — and issue a final ruling on the merits by December. That means that even if the administration pursues both tracks — an emergency motion and a full appeal — Harvard is likely to retain access to its research funding for at least the remainder of the year if the White House pursues the appeals circuit option.

Feldman added that even if a stay were granted, it might not fully reinstate the freeze. The court could permit Harvard researchers to draw on current and future grants as well as apply for new grants while leaving past withheld funds in limbo.

“It wouldn’t be an absolute victory, but it would be a pretty good victory,” he said.

But the fight could also continue at the Supreme Court, which could leave the case on shaky ground. According to Feldman, a full appeal with the Supreme Court could take a year or more. But the White House could also try to speed up the timetable — either by appealing directly after losing in the First Circuit or by heading straight to the Supreme Court with an emergency application.

On the Supreme Court’s shadow docket, where individual justices can hear emergency appeals or forward them to the full court, injunctions are often stayed pending appeal within weeks, without full briefing or oral argument.

“Where the government has had some of the most success in the funding-related cases, has been in getting the Supreme Court to issue a stay of any sort of injunction pending appeal,” said Andrew F. Sellars, a law professor at Boston University. “We’ve actually seen very few cases fully resolved.”

The Supreme Court’s emergency docket has already played a decisive role in related disputes. On June 16, U.S. District Judge William G. Young ’62 ordered the Trump administration to restore $3.8 billion in terminated National Institutes of Health grants for research on topics disfavored by the Trump administration, like race, LGBTQ health, and Covid-19 vaccines. The administration appealed directly to the Supreme Court on July 24. Less than a month later, the justices issued a 5-4 ruling granting a partial stay, leaving some grants intact but allowing about $783 million to be cut as the case is processed in federal claims court.

The administration successfully argued that reinstating the terminated NIH grants would cause irreparable harm to the White House because the grant funds cannot be recouped once spent by grantees.

Feldman said the Trump administration could attempt to similarly jump to the emergency docket in the Harvard case, asking the Supreme Court to lift Burroughs’ injunction and re-freeze the University’s funds while appeals proceed. Such an order would give Trump an immediate, symbolic victory, though Feldman said the government might ultimately have a stronger chance if the case proceeds through a full appellate briefing.

Bagenstos said the Supreme Court may, in particular, may be more amenable to reviewing the Harvard case considering its conservative majority.

“This Supreme Court has been very solicitous of Donald Trump and his administration, and so they may well decide to get involved here, and they may well be asked to do so on an expedited basis,” he said.

—Staff writer Dhruv T. Patel can be reached at dhruv.patel@thecrimson.com. Follow him on X @dhruvtkpatel.

—Staff writer Akshaya Ravi can be reached at akshaya.ravi@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @akshayaravi22.

—Staff writer Saketh Sundar can be reached at saketh.sundar@thecrimson.com. Follow him on X @saketh_sundar.