Harvard University has hired a well-connected team of lawyers with solid conservative credentials in its burgeoning legal battle with the Trump administration.
The legal team also includes well-known conservative political bona fides. Two attorneys have prominent ties to the Trump administration. And many of the others lean rightward, previously serving in Republican administrations, clerking for conservative federal judges and U.S. Supreme Court justices, and spending their time in private practice pursuing a pro-business litigation agenda.
The majority of the lawyers share another trait—deep roots at Harvard or other Ivy League schools. Of the 17 layers, 10 attended Harvard for law school or as an undergraduate or taught at the institution. Four of the remaining lawyers have degrees from other Ivy League schools.
Harvard’s Case
In Harvard v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the university asks the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts to overturn and permanently enjoin efforts by the Trump administration to cut billions of dollars in federal grants to the university and to set conditions that Harvard says will undermine academic freedom and its First Amendment rights.
The Trump administration has frozen and cancelled grants and government contracts to universities, alleging antisemitism in the wake of pro-Palestinian protests and an overwhelming liberal bias in campus policies and academic programs. In Harvard’s case, Trump has made a series of demands, including ending diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, submitting to federal audits of the university’s academic programs, agreeing to cull foreign students for their ideological beliefs, and hiring new administrators aligned with the administration to implement the changes.
Harvard rejected the demands, and in response, the White House froze $2.2 billion in multi-year grants—roughly a quarter of the $9 billion the government spends to support the school’s medical and research efforts.
The administration’s cuts impose “viewpoint-based conditions on Harvard’s funding,” thus violating its constitutional rights, the suit asserts.
The suit also accuses a laundry list of federal agencies and Trump officials of failing to follow detailed procedures for revoking federal funding, a penalty Congress envisioned as “a remedy of last resort,” the complaint says.
“This case involves the government’s efforts to use the withholding of federal funding as leverage to gain control of academic decision-making at Harvard,” the university’s complaint said. “No government—regardless of which party is in power—should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.”
Administration Ties
Each firm appears to be bringing something slightly different to the table. Quinn Emanuel, for instance, offers litigation prowess—and perhaps more importantly, proximity to the Trump administration.
Partner William Burck, who is working on the Harvard case, was hired in January by the Trump Organization, as the Associated Press reported, “to vet deals that could pose a conflict with public policy.” The company, breaking with practice in the first Trump term, said that while it would avoid making deals with foreign governments, it is allowing agreements with private companies outside the United States. In making the announcement, the company said it would commit to several safeguards, including hiring an ethics adviser—Burck—to review deals.
Burck has also advised Trump nominees through the confirmation process—including U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh—and recently negotiated on behalf of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison in the law firm’s controversial agreement with Trump to perform $40 million of pro bono legal work for White House-backed causes. During investigations into Russia’s role in the 2016 election, Burck represented key administration figures, including Trump adviser Steve Bannon, former White House counsel Don McGahn, and Reince Priebus, then Trump’s chief of staff.
Burck is currently Quinn Emanuel’s co-managing partner and co-chairs the firm’s Crisis Law and Strategy, Government and Regulatory Litigation, and Investigations, Government Enforcement and White Collar Criminal Defense groups. He previously served in President George W. Bush’s White House as special counsel and deputy counsel and is a former federal prosecutor.
A Former Trump Appointee
Also in Harvard’s corner is Robert Hur, a trial lawyer and partner at King & Spalding. Hur is a member of the firm’s Special Matters and Government Investigations practice, where the firm says he guides “clients facing bet-the-company issues and enterprise-threatening crises.”
Hur also has conservative bona fides and connections to the Trump team. A Stanford Law School and Harvard graduate, he clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Judge Alex Kosinski, a conservative on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and worked in the DOJ during the George W. Bush years.
Early in Trump’s first term, Hur was named principal associate deputy attorney general, with a portfolio covering the national security, criminal and antitrust divisions, the U.S. attorney’s offices, and the FBI. Later, Trump appointed him U.S. attorney for the District of Maryland, where he served until 2021.
In 2023, Attorney General Merrick Garland tapped Hur to investigate whether President Joe Biden mishandled classified documents. Hur angered Republicans by declining to prosecute and enraged Democrats with his description—offered in the midst of an election year—of Biden as an “elderly man with a poor memory.”
Boutique With Connections
Harvard’s complaint was signed and submitted by Steven Lehotsky, whose firm—28-lawyer Lehotsky Keller & Cohn—also boasts conservative legal and Washington insider credentials.
A former litigator at WilmerHale and Goodwin Procter, Lehotsky served as chief litigation counsel of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s influential National Litigation Center, where he challenged federal, state, and local business regulations. He is also a former attorney-adviser in the Office of Legal Counsel at the Bush-era U.S. Department of Justice, and clerked for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
After leaving the Chamber in 2021, Lehotsky co-founded his firm with partners Scott Keller and Jonathan Cohn, both of whom are on the Harvard case. Keller, a prominent appellate litigator, is the former head of the U.S. Supreme Court practice at Baker Botts and is the former solicitor general of Texas. Keller also served as U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz’s chief counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee and clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Cohn handles complex appellate and trial court litigation, was a senior litigation partner at Sidley Austin, and served as head of the civil appellate division at the Bush DOJ from 2003-2009. Like Lehotsky, Cohn is a graduate of Harvard Law School.
Lehotsky, Keller, and Cohn are joined by two other partners, Denver-based Katherine Yarger—who focuses on complex commercial litigation and once clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas—and Mary Miller, another complex trial and appellate litigator, former Justice Samuel Alito clerk, and Harvard undergrad.
Also on the team are Harvard graduate Shannon Denmark, a counsel at the firm and former clerk to Justice Kavanaugh; Harvard Law graduate Josh Morrow, a counsel and complex litigation specialist; Danielle Goldstein, an associate focusing on complex litigation; and associate and Harvard Law graduate Jacob Richards, who led the school’s Federalist Society and once touted the university’s treatment of conservatives on campus in a 2022 interview.
Big Law Bench
Ropes & Gray appears to be offering Harvard a range of complex litigation, appellate and higher education-related advice. Like King & Spalding, the firm is offering up a former federal prosecutor—in this case one with deep local experience in the venue where the case is being tried. Joshua Levy, who rejoined the firm in March as a partner, served as U.S. attorney for the District of Massachusetts from 2023-2025.
Levy’s partner, Mark Barnes, may have the deepest understanding of Harvard’s research capabilities among members of the litigation team. He served as the university’s senior research officer and provost for research, and taught health care law and public health law at Harvard Law School from 2008 to 2015.
Barnes, along with fellow partner Steve Sencer, have experience in government investigations involving academia and have represented universities and academic medical centers in cases involving allegations of foreign influence and scientific espionage by faculty and post-doctoral fellows. Like Barnes, Sencer has a long background counseling research universities and academic medical centers, having served as chief legal officer of Emory University and its affiliated health system.
Two other partners with extensive trial and appellate experience round out the Ropes & Gray team. John Bueker is global co-chair of Ropes & Gray’s Litigation and Enforcement practice group, and Douglas Hallward-Driemeier leads the firm’s Appellate and Supreme Court practice. They are also joined by Harvard Law graduate Elena Weissman Davis, a litigation associate who was supervising chair of the Harvard Law Review.
The ABA Steps Into the Ring
Meanwhile, the American Bar Association (ABA) filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice on Wednesday, alleging that the agency unlawfully terminated federal grants in response to the ABA’s public criticism of the Trump administration, Reuters reported.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., seeks to prevent the Department of Justice and Attorney General Pam Bondi from revoking $3.2 million in grants designated for training lawyers to represent victims of domestic and sexual violence.
The ABA argues that the decision violates the First Amendment, claiming the grants were canceled as retaliation for the organization’s critical stance.
On Thursday, the ABA requested a temporary restraining order to stop the government from terminating the grants while the case proceeds. The ABA emphasized the importance of these funds in ensuring legal representation for vulnerable populations and highlighted the broader implications of the DOJ's actions on free speech and fair governance.
Next Steps
Behind-the-scenes maneuvering to end the showdown between Harvard and Trump has not abated.
Burck, The New York Times reported, has been asked to engage with the White House, and reportedly attempted to persuade Harvard to re-engage with Trump officials, warning that litigation could be risky.
On Thursday, President Trump derided Burck in a post on his social media site, Truth Social, urging the Trump Organization to fire him, Reuters reported.
"Harvard is an Anti-Semitic, Far Left Institution, as are numerous others, with students being accepted from all over the World that want to rip our Country apart. The place is a Liberal mess, allowing a certain group of crazed lunatics to enter and exit the classroom and spew fake ANGER AND HATE. It is truly horrific!" President Trump wrote in the post.
"Now, since our filings began, they act like they are all 'American Apple Pie.' Harvard is a threat to Democracy, with a lawyer, who represents me, who should therefore be forced to resign, immediately, or be fired. He’s not that good, anyway, and I hope that my very big and beautiful company, now run by my sons, gets rid of him ASAP!"
Eric Trump, who currently manages the Trump Organization alongside his brother Donald Trump Jr., confirmed the organization will move to sever ties with Burck.
When asked whether Burck remains affiliated with the organization, Eric Trump said, "I view it as conflict and I will be moving in a different direction." He declined to provide further details.
Many of Harvard’s conservative donors have also called upon the university to reach an accommodation with the administration, the newspaper reported.
Unless Harvard and the Trump administration come to terms, the university’s cadre of lawyers could be in for a long engagement—one that many legal observers believe will eventually head to the U.S. Supreme Court.
--
David L. Brown is a legal affairs writer and consultant who has served as head of editorial at ALM Media, editor-in-chief of The National Law Journal and Legal Times, and executive editor of The American Lawyer. He consults on thought leadership strategy and creates in-depth content for legal industry clients and works closely with Best Law Firms as a senior content consultant.
