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
Rights & Justice
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
DOJ Slammed for Ending Efforts to Tackle Racist Policing
One critic called the move "an unprecedented abandonment of the Department of Justice's responsibility to enforce civil rights laws and protect communities from unlawful police abuse."
May 22, 2025
Racial justice advocates decried Wednesday's announcement by the U.S. Department of Justice that it will end law enforcement reform and accountability efforts, including the Biden administration's agreements with the cities of Minneapolis and Louisville—a move that came just days before the fifth anniversary of George Floyd's murder by a Minneapolis cop.
The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Civil Rights Division said it is dropping lawsuits against the Minneapolis and Louisville police departments and ending pending consent decrees—court-enforceable agreements under which law enforcement agencies commit to reform—with the two cities. The deals, which have been submitted to judges for approval, have been held up in federal court as the Trump administration has sought to block their implementation.
The Civil Rights Division said it "will also be closing its investigations into, and retracting the Biden administration's findings of constitutional violations on the part of," the Louisiana State Police and police departments in Phoenix; Memphis; Oklahoma City; Trenton, New Jersey; and Mount Vernon, New York.
To “disappear” DOJ findings like this is the most disturbing and disgraceful part. A key advantage of DOJ pattern & practice investigations is that DOJ has the resources to absorb the cost of generating the findings that indiv civ rights groups suing police depts find onerous & often prohibitive.
[image or embed]
— Sherrilyn Ifill ( @sifill.bsky.social) May 21, 2025 at 8:02 AM
Civil rights lawyer Benjamin Crump, who represents the families of George Floyd—murdered by then-Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin on May 25, 2020—and Breoanna Taylor, who was killed earlier that year by Louisville police, called the DOJ announcement a "slap in the face."
"Just days before the fifth anniversary of George Floyd's murder—a moment that galvanized a global movement for justice—the U.S. Department of Justice has chosen to turn its back on the very communities it pledged to protect," Crump said in a statement Wednesday.
"By walking away from consent decrees in Minneapolis and Louisville, and closing its investigation into the Memphis Police Department while retracting findings of serious constitutional violations, the DOJ is not just rolling back reform, it is attempting to erase truth and contradicting the very principles for which justice stands," he asserted.
"These consent decrees and investigations were not symbolic gestures, they were lifelines for communities crying out for change, rooted in years of organizing, suffering, and advocacy," Crump continued, adding that the DOJ's moves "will only deepen the divide between law enforcement and the people they are sworn to protect and serve."
Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) lamented the DOJ move and accused the Trump administration of acting "like Breonna Taylor and George Floyd's lives didn't mean a damn thing."
Democratic Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said his city would proceed with reforms despite the DOJ's announcement, while questioning the move's timing.
"The Trump administration is a mess. It is predictable that they would move for a dismissal the very same week that George Floyd was murdered five years ago," he said. "What this shows is that all [President] Donald Trump really cares about is political theater."
The DOJ claimed the Biden administration falsely accused the Minneapolis and Louisville police departments of "widespread patterns of unconstitutional policing practices by wrongly equating statistical disparities with intentional discrimination and heavily relying on flawed methodologies and incomplete data."
"These sweeping consent decrees would have imposed years of micromanagement of local police departments by federal courts and expensive independent monitors, and potentially hundreds of millions of dollars of compliance costs, without a legally or factually adequate basis for doing so," the agency argued.
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon—the conspiracy theorist who heads the Civil Rights Division despite, or perhaps because of, her troubled history of working against voting, reproductive, LGBTQ+, and other civil rights—said in a statement Wednesday that her agency is ending the Biden administration's "failed experiment of handcuffing local leaders and police departments with factually unjustified consent decrees."
"Overbroad police consent decrees divest local control of policing from communities where it belongs, turning that power over to unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats, often with an anti-police agenda," Dhillon added.
"DOJ's actions today amount to a public declaration that law enforcement agencies are above the law."
Legal Defense Fund director of strategic initiatives Jin Hee Lee called the DOJ announcement "an unprecedented abandonment of the Department of Justice's responsibility to enforce civil rights laws and protect communities from unlawful police abuse."
Lee said the DOJ investigations that led to the consent decrees "revealed a litany of systemic harms to community members, whom officers are sworn to protect—from wanton violence and sexual misconduct to unlawful stops, searches, and arrests, and racially discriminatory policing."
"By abandoning its obligation to pursue legal remedies that would stem this unlawful conduct, DOJ necessarily condones it," Lee added. "DOJ's actions today amount to a public declaration that law enforcement agencies are above the law."
NAACP president Derrick Johnson said on social media, "It's no surprise that Trump's Department of Coverups and Vengeance isn't seeking justice."
"It's been five years, and police reform legislation still hasn't passed in Congress, and police departments still haven't been held accountable," Johnson added, referring to Floyd's murder. "Five years."
Furthermore, speculation is growing over the prospect of Trump pardoning Chauvin. Addressing the possibility, Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walzsaid earlier this week that "if Chauvin's federal conviction is pardoned, he will still have to serve the remainder of his 22-and-a-half-year state prison sentence for murder and manslaughter."
Opponents vowed to fight the Trump administration's civil rights pushback.
"Let me be clear: We will not give up," Crump said. "This movement will not be swayed or deterred by fickle politics. It is anchored in the irrefutable truth that Black lives matter, and that justice should not depend on who is in power."
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
After 'Heartless' ICE Refusal, Judge Orders Officials to Allow Mahmoud Khalil to See His Family
ICE and a private prison contractor had cited alleged "security concerns" when they refused to allow Khalil see his wife and newborn son.
May 21, 2025
U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz in New Jersey ruled Wednesday that immigration officials at a Louisiana detention facility must allow former Columbia University student organizer Mahmoud Khalil to see his family, after the authorities refused to grant Khalil's request on their own.
Farbiarz found, based on a court filing by Khalil's lawyers, that his wife, Noor Abdalla "is aware of certain facts that would be of assistance to counsel in their current habeas representation of the petitioner before this court."
"The court is inclined to issue an order today... to permit the petitioner, his wife, and the petitioner's lawyers to meet together tomorrow morning at the facility where the petitioner is held," Farbiarz wrote.
Khalil is scheduled to have an immigration hearing Thursday, which Abdalla and her newborn son flew to Louisiana from New York to attend.
The order did not state that a visit specifically for Khalil to spend time with his wife and son should be arranged.
Lawyers with the Center for Constitutional Rights, the ACLU, and other groups helping to represent Khalil in his habeas corpus case had submitted a filing with Farbiarz Wednesday, asking him to require LaSalle Detention Center in Jena, Louisiana to allow Khalil to visit with his family for at least two hours—exactly a month after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) refused to allow him to be present for his son's birth—or "at minimum," allow Abdalla to join a contact visit with Khalil's legal team.
"Petitioner's counsel have made repeated requests for a contact visit to occur," wrote the lawyers. "Such a visit is necessary for the most elementary human reasons and given the ongoing strain of his pending habeas corpus petition, the visit is critical to ensure Mr. Khalil, who is an active participant in his legal case, can meaningfully contribute to the proceedings before this court."
The request was rejected on Wednesday morning after Abdalla and her baby had flown more than 1,400 miles for the hearing.
Along with the private prison contractor that runs the facility, GEO Group, ICE had cited "security concerns" when refusing to allow Khalil to see his family.
"The facility's refusal contradicts ICE's own directives, including ICE Directive 11064.3, which affirms the importance of minimizing disruptions to family life and preserving parental rights," said the ACLU in a statement. "The Performance-Based National Detention Standards also explicitly encourage contact visits, especially where young children and long travel distances are involved."
Abdalla said she was "furious at the cruelty and inhumanity of this system that dares to call itself just."
"After flying over a thousand miles to Louisiana with our newborn son, his very first flight, all so his father could finally hold him in his arms, ICE has denied us even this most basic human right," said Abdalla. "This is not just heartless. It is deliberate violence, the calculated cruelty of a government that tears families apart without remorse. And I cannot ignore the echoes of this pain in the stories of Palestinian families, torn apart by Israeli military prisons and bombs, denied dignity, denied life. Our struggle is not isolated. This system is unjust, and we will fight until Mahmoud is home."
Abdalla, a U.S. citizen, was eight months pregnant when immigration agents accosted her and Khalil in March outside their apartment on Columbia's campus and took him away in an unmarked vehicle. He was informed that his green card had been revoked and was taken first to a detention center in New Jersey and then flown to Louisiana, where an immigration judge later ruled that the Trump administration's deportation case against him could go forward. That ruling was handed down despite Secretary of State Marco Rubio's admission that Khalil is not accused of breaking any laws and that he was targeted because his advocacy for Palestinian rights was seen as detrimental to U.S. foreign policy interests.
"The government chose to arrest and detain Mahmoud thousands of miles away in the Louisiana detention gulags to punish him for his support for Palestinian human rights, and is doubling down on their retaliatory punishment by denying him the most elementary human contact with his wife and child," said Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights. "ICE leadership and elected officials must act to remedy this grotesque and unnecessary inhumanity for Mahmoud—and for all others."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular