Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
A federal judge in Boston has extended a temporary restraining order that prevents President Donald Trump from enforcing his order against international students seeking to study at Harvard University. This ruling offers a significant short-term victory for Harvard amid an ongoing confrontation with the Trump administration.
On Monday, lawyers representing Harvard urged U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs to maintain two restraining orders. These orders had previously blocked the Trump administration from revoking Harvard’s credentials under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, known as SEVP. The second restraining order temporarily halted a proclamation signed by Trump that aimed to deny travel to foreign nationals planning to study or conduct research at Harvard.
In court, Harvard attorney Ian Gershengorn declared that the proclamation represents a blatant violation of the First Amendment. He requested a preliminary injunction, which would provide more lasting protection against the administration’s actions.
Judge Burroughs subsequently extended the temporary restraining order through June 23, indicating she requires additional time to formally consider the request for injunctive relief. “We’ll kick out an opinion as soon as we can,” she told the court shortly before the proceedings concluded.
Legal Conflict and Administration Actions
The legal battle centers around a push announced by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to revoke Harvard’s SEVP credentials, alongside a proclamation signed by Trump in June. This act seeks to bar foreign nationals from entering the U.S. if their intent is to study or engage in research at Harvard.
Both the revocation of SEVP credentials and the travel restrictions faced swift temporary cessation from Judge Burroughs. Harvard’s legal team is now advocating for a more permanent solution, specifically a preliminary injunction that will solidify their standing.
During the court proceedings, Harvard’s representatives emphasized that the actions taken by the Trump administration have generated unnecessary uncertainty for both the university and its students. Many international students face the potential of having their status abruptly and categorically rescinded.
Claims of Administrative Overreach
Harvard contends the Trump administration’s actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act, alongside the First and Fifth Amendments. According to their filings, such actions bring chaos and could result in lasting harm to Harvard for no compelling reason.
During the legal discussions, Harvard’s attorneys highlighted alarming incidents, including foreign students wrongfully denied visas after expressing intentions to study at Harvard. In one instance, four students were wrongfully detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection upon their arrival at Logan International Airport in Boston.
Impact on International Students
Amid the ongoing legal fight, Harvard is determined to maintain its SEVP accreditation, which allows the institution to sponsor international students for U.S. visas during their enrollment in the university. Losing this accreditation would affect approximately 7,000 international students, accounting for around 27% of Harvard’s total student population.
Legal experts have cautioned that if Harvard loses its SEVP status, affected students may only have a brief period to transition to other U.S. universities or risk losing their student visas within 180 days.
A Broader Context of Tension
Monday’s hearing is just one of many legal clashes between Harvard and the Trump administration during this administration’s second term. Since Trump took office in 2017, the administration has frozen over $2 billion in grants and contracts awarded to Harvard and proposed revoking its tax-exempt status. Moreover, federal investigations involving six different agencies have only heightened the uncertainty surrounding Harvard.
Harvard’s ongoing legal struggles illustrate a larger environment of tension and scrutiny directed at the university. Administrative accusations have included claims against Harvard for fostering violence, antisemitism, and colluding with the Chinese Communist Party, highlighting the contentious nature of the relationship.
Future Implications and Unanswered Questions
As legal experts evaluate the circumstances, they note that the court is navigating largely uncharted legal territory. Many scholars have expressed uncertainty regarding how these legal proceedings will conclude given the absence of clear precedent in similar cases.
Josh Blackman, a law professor at South Texas College of Law, remarked on the unpredictable nature of such cases, stating, “As with many things that Trump does, the answer is unclear because it hasn’t been done before. No president has attempted such actions previously, so I don’t believe there’s a clear precedent.”
The dynamics between Harvard and the Trump administration will continue to evolve as the legal processes unfold. For now, international students and the university breathe a sigh of relief with the judge’s ruling, but the path ahead remains fraught with uncertainty and obstacles.
