波士顿苏丁塔纳瓦拉迈克尔·卡西--周一，联邦上诉法院听取了反对意见，争论法官是否有权恢复特朗普政府从哈佛大学削减的数十亿美元资金。
MICHAEL CASEY, SUDHIN THANAWALA BOSTON — A federal appeals court heard opposing arguments Monday over whether a judge had the authority to restore billions of dollars in funding that the Trump administration cut from Harvard University.
美国地区法官艾莉森·巴勒斯去年裁定，这些削减相当于对哈佛大学拒绝政府改变哈佛大学治理和政策的要求的非法报复。
U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs ruled last year that the cuts amounted to illegal retaliation for Harvard’s rejection of the administration’s demands for changes to Harvard’s governance and policies.
政府将此举与哈佛大学拖延处理反犹太主义联系起来，但法官表示，该大学联邦政府支持的研究与歧视犹太人几乎没有关系。该裁决恢复了这所富有的常春藤盟校超过26亿美元的研究经费。
The government had tied the move to Harvard’s delays in dealing with antisemitism, but the judge said the university’s federally backed research had little connection to discrimination against Jews. The ruling restored more than $2.6 billion in research funding for the wealthy Ivy League school.
尽管资金已恢复流动，但司法部一名律师周一告诉美国第一巡回上诉法院的三名法官小组，巴勒斯缺乏要求政府支付这笔资金的法律权力。
Though the money has resumed flowing, a Justice Department attorney told a three-judge panel of the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday that Burroughs lacked the legal power to require the administration to pay it.
司法部律师迈克尔·维尔奇克（Michael Velchik）表示，围绕这笔钱的斗争是一场合同纠纷，理应属于另一个法院：美国联邦索赔法院。该法院的起源可以追溯到1800年代中期，负责处理公民向联邦政府寻求资金的诉讼。
The fight over the money was a contractual dispute that rightly belonged in a different court: the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, DOJ attorney Michael Velchik said. That court, which traces its origins to the mid-1800s, handles lawsuits by citizens seeking money from the federal government.
维尔奇克告诉第一巡回法院：“问题是地方法院缺乏下令具体履行的管辖权。”“这是我们在这里唯一抱怨的事情。”维尔奇克引用了美国最高法院最近的裁决来支持他的论点。
“The problem is that the district court lacked jurisdiction to order specific performance,” Velchik told the First Circuit. “That is the only thing that we’re complaining about here.”Velchik cited recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings in support of his argument.
哈佛大学律师保罗·克莱门特（Paul Clement）表示，此案并不是简单的合同纠纷，而是引发了更广泛的报复和歧视问题。他说，地区法院恢复资金的决定是对所发现的违规行为的“完美补救”。他说：“这些并不是真正以任何特定方式依赖于合同的索赔。”
Paul Clement, an attorney for Harvard, said the case was not a straightforward contractual dispute, but raised broader issues of retaliation and discrimination. The district court’s decision restoring the funding was the “perfect remedy” for the violations it found, he said. “These are not claims that really depend on the contract in any particular way,” he said.
唐纳德·特朗普总统提名的第一巡回法院法官约书亚·邓拉普（Joshua Dunlap）向克莱门特施压，询问巴勒斯是否实际上发布了要求付款的命令，以及哈佛大学是否可以在没有合同的情况下提出更广泛的法律主张。
First Circuit Judge Joshua Dunlap, a nominee of President Donald Trump, pressed Clement on whether Burroughs had in effect issued an order requiring payment and whether Harvard could make its broader legal claims without a contract.
该小组的其他法官桑德拉·林奇和古斯塔沃·格尔皮是由民主党总统提名的。法官没有立即做出裁决。
The other judges on the panel, Sandra Lynch and Gustavo Gelpi, were nominated by Democratic presidents. The judges did not immediately rule.
哈佛大学的诉讼指控特朗普政府在哈佛大学拒绝了联邦反犹太主义特别工作组的一封信中的一系列要求后对该大学发起报复行动。
Harvard’s lawsuit accused the Trump administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university after it rejected a series of demands in a letter from a federal antisemitism task force.
这封信要求对校园抗议、学术和招生进行全面改革。这是为了回应政府的指控，即该大学已成为自由主义温床并容忍校园反犹太骚扰。
The letter demanded sweeping changes related to campus protests, academics and admissions. It was meant to address government accusations that the university had become a hotbed of liberalism and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment on campus.
政府还试图阻止哈佛大学接收外国学生，并威胁要取消其免税地位，这场冲突引起了整个高等教育界的广泛关注。
The administration also has sought to prevent Harvard from hosting foreign students and threatened to revoke its tax-exempt status in a clash watched widely across higher education.
在周一的辩论中，林奇对政府关于哈佛大学对反犹太主义漠不关心的说法表示怀疑。
During Monday’s arguments, Lynch expressed skepticism of the administration’s claim that Harvard had been indifferent to antisemitism.
“没有任何调查结果。没有进行任何调查。只是宣布‘我们在这种背景下终止合同’，”她说。法官补充说，政府似乎“不想面对法律和此案的事实”。塔纳瓦拉从亚特兰大报道。
“There are no findings. There was no investigation. There was simply an announcement, ‘We’re terminating against that backdrop,’” she said. It appeared the administration “didn’t want to have to cope with what the law and the facts of this case presented,” the judge added. Thanawala reported from Atlanta.