US judge extends block on Trump-era ban on foreign students at Harvard

US District Judge Allison Burroughs granted Harvard a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of a June 4 proclamation that bars international students from entering the US

By David Voreacos

 

A federal judge issued another court order letting Harvard University keep hosting foreign students, this one in its fight to overturn President Donald Trump’s proclamation barring their entry to the US. 

US District Judge Allison Burroughs granted the university a preliminary injunction Monday that prevents the government from enacting a June 4 proclamation denying entry to international students planning to attend the school. The injunction extends an earlier temporary bar.

 

“This case is about core constitutional rights that must be safeguarded: freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and freedom of speech, each of which is a pillar of a functioning democracy and an essential hedge against authoritarianism,” she wrote.  

 

Burroughs’ ruling is the second win for Harvard in its high-stakes fight with the Trump administration over its large international student population. On June 20, the judge blocked a May 22 order by the US revoking Harvard’s certification to enroll foreign students. Both administration actions strike at the heart of that population — one by aiming at the school’s eligibility to enroll foreign students and the other by focusing on their entry at the border.

 

“The court’s order will continue to allow Harvard to host international students and scholars while this case moves forward,” the university said in a statement. “Harvard will continue to defend its rights—and the rights of its students and scholars.”

 

Representatives the White House didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

 

Harvard is the main target of Trump’s efforts to force universities to crack down on antisemitism, remove perceived political bias and eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programmes. Harvard has separately sued over a $2.6 billion funding freeze, and Burroughs has temporarily blocked that from moving forward, too. Trump has also threatened to revoke the school’s tax-exempt status.

 

Burroughs said Harvard is likely to succeed on its claims that Trump’s proclamation represents unlawful retaliation, including for the college having sued the administration over its earlier actions to cancel its grants. 

 

The judge said Harvard was also likely to succeed on its claim that the proclamation was illegal because Trump issued it to punish the college for “ideology that runs contrary to the favored views of the administration.”

 

The ruling follows Trump’s June 20 Truth Social post saying that his administration and Harvard were back in negotiations.

 

It also comes the same day that Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem published an op-ed in The Washington Post reaffirming the administration’s commitment to revoking Harvard’s ability to enroll international students.

 

“A biased judge immediately issued an injunction against this action, clearly taking no time to weigh the merits of the case,” Noem wrote of the preliminary injunction that Burroughs issued on Friday. “If she had, then she would have seen that DHS is well within its authority. We fully expect to prevail.”

 

Trump’s visa proclamation takes aim at a school where 27 per cent of the students are foreign. At a June 16 hearing, Harvard attorney Ian Gershengorn said the visa proclamation had a “devastating” impact on Harvard that is intended to last for years.

 

“It separates roommates, teammates and classmates,” Gershengorn said. “It threatens labs, pioneering research, engineering innovations. It deprives students of graduate mentors and teachers. It deprives the university of a breadth of experience and approaches that fundamentally alters what it means to learn at Harvard.”

 

Harvard argues Trump’s proclamation violates its First Amendment right to reject government demands to control its governance, curriculum and the viewpoints of faculty and students. University lawyers say US actions targeting the school, including freezing billions of dollars in funding, could have a devastating impact on America’s oldest and richest university. 

 

The Trump administration argues that the president has sweeping power to control immigration and national security, and judges can’t second-guess his exercise of that power. At the hearing, Justice Department lawyer Tiberius Davis said Trump took action against Harvard for valid reasons.

 

“We don’t trust Harvard to vet, host, monitor or discipline the foreign students that it is bringing into this country, where other universities we don’t have as many concerns yet,” Davis said. “They have a lot of unrest on campus. They have serious antisemitic conduct. Their own report has said this. They didn’t adequately discipline students.”

 

The case is Harvard v. US Department of Homeland Security, 25-cv-11472, US District Court, District of Massachusetts (Boston).