SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
education
Judge Blocks Trump Ban on Foreign Students at Harvard
"Without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard."
May 23, 2025
Update (12:10 pm ET):
U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs handed down a temporary restraining order Friday, halting the Trump administration's ban on international students at Harvard University while litigation proceeds.
The judge agreed with Harvard's claim that the action would cause "immediate and irreparable injury" to the university.
Earlier:
Harvard University officials accused the Trump administration of using more than 7,000 international students and their families as "pawns in the government's escalating campaign of retaliation" in a lawsuit filed Friday, a day after the U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced the Ivy League school would no longer be permitted to enroll foreign students.
"With the stroke of a pen, the government has sought to erase a quarter of Harvard's student body, international students who contribute significantly to the university and its mission," reads the lawsuit. "Without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard."
The university said it was seeking a temporary restraining order to the stop DHS from terminating Harvard's Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, which would force thousands of foreign students to transfer to other schools—or risk losing their legal status—and cancel the plans of many other students planning to travel to the U.S. in the coming months to begin attending in the fall.
Harvard said in the lawsuit that the move was a "blatant violation" of the First Amendment, the constitutional right to due process, and other laws.
DHS announced the termination of Harvard's certification weeks after the Trump administration threatened to revoke the school's tax-exempt status and froze more than $2 billion in federal funding after university president Alan Garber said the administration would not comply with President Donald Trump's demands to "derecognize pro-Palestine student groups, audit its academic programs for viewpoint diversity, and expel students involved in an altercation at a 2023 pro-Palestine protest on the Harvard Business School campus."
Harvard filed a lawsuit over the frozen funding last month, and arguments in the case are set to be heard in court in July.
The Trump administration's attacks have largely centered on what it claims is Harvard's failure to address "antisemitism" on campus, but a statement by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on Thursday additionally accused the school of "coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus." Noem provided no evidence of the claim.
Garber wrote to the university community on Friday, announcing the lawsuit and assuring foreign students that they are "vital members of our community."
"You are our classmates and friends, our colleagues and mentors, our partners in the work of this great institution," said Garber. "Thanks to you, we know more and understand more, and our country and our world are more enlightened and more resilient. We will support you as we do our utmost to ensure that Harvard remains open to the world."
He added that Trump's latest attack amounts to retaliation "for our refusal to surrender our academic independence and to submit to the federal government's illegal assertion of control over our curriculum, our faculty, and our student body."
Garber noted in Friday's lawsuit and in the letter to students, faculty, and staff that Harvard has complied with the administration's demands, send on April 16, for information about each student visa holder at the university's 13 schools.
"On May 22, DHS deemed Harvard's response 'insufficient,' without explaining why or citing any regulation with which Harvard failed to comply," reads Friday's lawsuit.
The New York Timesinterviewed one Harvard student from Ukraine who said she would not be able to return home due to Russia's war on the Eastern European country. She said she was considering disrupting her education to go elsewhere in Europe to live with relatives.
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology swiftly extended an open invitation for international students at Harvard to transfer with an expedited admissions process in light of Trump's action.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick of the American Immigration Council said he expected Harvard to "win a temporary restraining order before Monday" in the case.
Keep ReadingShow Less
In 'Intolerable Attack,' Trump DHS Blocks Harvard From Enrolling International Students
"There is no purpose to this other than to hurt Harvard and its students for not fully capitulating to Trump," a professor at the University of Denver wrote.
May 22, 2025
Observers are sharply condemning a decision by the Trump administration, announced on Thursday, to terminate Harvard University's Student Exchange and Visitor Program certification, meaning that the Ivy League school will no longer be able to enroll foreign students.
According to the announcement from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the move also means that foreign students already enrolled at Harvard must transfer elsewhere. The administration alleges the school's leaders have permitted "anti-American, pro-terrorist agitators to harass and physically assault individuals, including many Jewish students."
In a statement shared with multiple outlets, a spokesperson for the school called the Trump administration's actions "unlawful."
"This retaliatory action threatens serious harm to the Harvard community and our country, and undermines Harvard's academic and research mission," the spokesperson said.
Harvard has over 6,700 international students, according to data from the school, or 27% international enrollment.
"This intolerable attack on Harvard's independence and academic freedom is plainly government retaliation for Harvard's speech standing up for itself and the rule of law. America must rally to the side of Harvard and its students in court, in Congress and in our communities," Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who earned his undergraduate and law degrees from the school, wrote on Thursday.
"I am losing my mind with the lawlessness of this administration," wroteDevin Driscoll, a lawyer, on X on Thursday. "The government is singling out Harvard because they don't like it and it's fighting back."
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, an immigration lawyer, wrote that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's "action is also likely illegal. She doesn't name a single rule Harvard is alleged to have violated and SEVP certification can't be terminated discretionarily."
Seth Masket, a political science professor at the University of Denver, wrote on Bluesky that "there is no purpose to this other than to hurt Harvard and its students for not fully capitulating to [President Donald] Trump."
Harvard has been repeatedly in the Trump administration's crosshairs. In March, the Trump administration sent letters to 60 universities, including Harvard, letting them know they were under investigation and "warning them of potential enforcement actions" if they do not take adequate steps to protect Jewish students. The administration later said it was reviewing $9 billion in funding for Harvard, claiming it had not done enough to curb antisemitism.
In April, after the administration issued a list of demands to Harvard which the university's president refused to comply with, the administration froze over $2 billion in funding for the school. Harvard has sued the Trump administration over that funding. Trump has also said he will revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status.
Also in April, the Trump administration threatened to prevent the school's ability to enroll international students unless it gave DHS a list of requested information about student visa holders.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Split Supreme Court Won't Allow First Religious Public Charter School in US
Although another case could soon come before the high court, the ACLU still welcomed that, for now, "public schools must remain secular and welcome all students, regardless of faith."
May 22, 2025
Public education and First Amendment advocates on Thursday celebrated the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to allow the nation's first religious public charter school in Oklahoma—even though the outcome of this case doesn't rule out the possibility of another attempt to establish such an institution.
"Requiring states to allow religious public schools would dismantle religious freedom and public education as we know it," Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the ACLU, said in a statement about the 4-4 decison. "Today, a core American constitutional value remains in place: Public schools must remain secular and welcome all students, regardless of faith."
Wang's group and other partners had filed a lawsuit over St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School on behalf of parents, faith leaders, and public school advocates. Her colleague Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, declared Thursday that "the very idea of a religious public school is a constitutional oxymoron."
The new one-page opinion states that "the judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court," which means the Oklahoma Supreme Court's June 2024 ruling against St. Isidore remains in place. There are nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court, but Justice Amy Coney Barrett—who is part of its right-wing supermajority—recused herself from this case.
"While Justice Barrett did not provide an explanation for her recusal, it may be because she is close friends with Nicole Stelle Garnett, a professor at Notre Dame Law School who was an early adviser for St. Isidore," The New York Timesnoted. "Although justices sometimes provide reasons when they recuse themselves, they are not required to do so."
Law Dork's Chris Geidner warned that "a new challenge not requiring her recusal could easily return to the court in short order—especially now that the court has shown its interest in taking on the issue."
In this case, as Common Dreams reported during oral arguments last month, Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to be the deciding vote. Geidner pointed out Thursday that while it seems most likely that he sided with the three liberals, "even that could have been as much of a vote to put off a decision as a substantive ruling on the matter."
Some groups happy with the outcome in this case also highlighted that the battle is expected to continue.
"This is a crucial, if narrow, win for constitutional principles," Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor said in a statement. "A publicly funded religious charter school would have obliterated the wall of separation between state and church. We're relieved that, at least for now, the First Amendment still means what it says."
"The fight isn't over," Gaylor added. "The forces trying to undermine our public schools and constitutional freedoms are already regrouping. FFRF will continue to defend secular education and the rights of all Americans to be free from government-imposed religion."
Leading teachers unions also weighed in with both an amicus brief submitted to the high court and Thursday statements.
"Educators and parents know that student success depends on more resources in our public schools, not less. Yet for too long, we have seen anti-public education forces attempt to deprive public school students of necessary funding and support," National Education Association president Becky Pringle said Thursday. "We are gratified that the Supreme Court did not take the radical step of upending public education by requiring states to have religious charter schools."
American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten also welcomed that the high court on Thursday let stand the Oklahoma decision, "which correctly upheld the separation of church and state and backed the founders' intention to place religious pluralism over sectarianism."
"We are grateful that it upheld the state's highest court's clear and unambiguous ruling to preserve and nurture the roots of our democracy, not tear up its very foundations," Weingarten said in a statement. "We respect and honor religious education. It should be separate from public schooling."
"Public schools, including public charter schools, are funded by taxpayer dollars because they are dedicated to helping all—not just some—children have a shot at success," she stressed. "They are the bedrock of our democracy, and states have long worked to ensure that they remain secular, open, and accessible to all."
This article has been updated with comment from the National Education Association.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular