Burroughs said that, despite the Trump administration’s backtracking, she felt an order was necessary to protect Harvard’s international students.
Department of Justice attorney Tiberius Davis pushed back on the restraining order, saying the issue had effectively become “moot” since the Trump administration changed course.
He called the recent notice “the next step” in the Trump administration’s campaign to retaliate against the school.
DHS officials have said that the revocation was necessary because Harvard failed to turn over information about international students — including disciplinary records — as requested by the Trump administration.
Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Trump suggested that Harvard should cap the number of international students to 15% of the school’s total student body.
Prior to a federal hearing regarding Harvard University’s overseas enrollment policy, the acting director of the U.S. S. The school has 30 days to contest the administration’s decision to revoke that certification, according to a letter from Immigration and Customs Enforcement issued on Thursday.
Although the letter formally informs the school that its certification under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program will be revoked, it reverts to the administration’s previous position by giving Harvard 30 days to comply.
The notice stated that “your school has 30 calendar days from the date of service of this Notice to submit written representations under oath and supported by documentary evidence, setting forth the reasons why SEVP should not withdraw your school’s certification.”. “Your school will no longer be permitted to enroll or continue teaching nonimmigrant students if SEVP certification is revoked. “,”.
A week after Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem declared she had issued an order terminating the school’s SEVP certification, the notice was sent.
Noem wrote a letter to the university last week, saying, “You have lost this privilege because you have repeatedly refused to comply with requests to provide the Department of Homeland Security pertinent information while maintaining an unsafe campus environment that is hostile to Jewish students, promotes pro-Hamas sympathies, and employs racist ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ policies.”.
Shortly after the 30-day notice was given by the Trump administration, on Thursday, U. A. According to District Judge Allison Burroughs, she intends to issue a preliminary injunction that would prevent the Trump administration from rescinding Harvard’s SEVP certification without first completing the necessary legal steps.
In my opinion, an order is required. I want to make sure nothing changes, but it doesn’t have to be strict. Amidst the thousands of Harvard students and their families attending the school’s commencement, the judge declared, “I want to maintain the status quo.”.
Judge Burroughs stated that a temporary restraining order she issued last week will be in effect until a preliminary injunction is finalized.
In spite of the Trump administration’s reversals, Burroughs stated that she believed an order was required to safeguard Harvard’s international students.
During the 20-minute hearing, she stated, “Given what has come before this, I would feel more at ease.”. “For international students who are nervous about coming here, it provides some protection. “..”.
Rejecting the restraining order, Department of Justice lawyer Tiberius Davis claimed that the matter was now “moot” because the Trump administration had shifted its strategies.
“The Department has determined that it would be more advantageous and straightforward to proceed with the process,” Davis stated.
The Trump administration was illegally violating the school’s First Amendment rights by retaliating against it for refusing to budge to other demands from the government, according to Harvard lawyer Ian Gershengorn, who said that a restraining order was still required despite the change. He referred to the latest notification as “the next step” in the Trump administration’s effort to target the school for retaliation.
“There seems to be a different set of rules, procedures for Harvard,” he stated. “The harms caused by the First Amendment are genuine and ongoing. “.”.
In order to ascertain whether the possible revocation is retaliatory, Judge Burroughs proposed that the parties may ultimately return to court in a few months after the legal proceedings are concluded.
“We believe the case would be very different by then,” Davis stated.
Harvard has claimed that the SEVP revocation is illegal because it violates the school’s free speech rights, that the policy is arbitrary and thus violates the Administrative Procedure Act, and that the policy runs roughshod over the school’s due process protections because it was not given the chance to respond to the revocation. The university has also claimed that the Trump administration’s actions are part of a “campaign to coerce Harvard into surrendering its First Amendment rights.”.
“The surrounding events, and Defendants’ express statements, make clear that the Department of Homeland Security took these actions not for any valid reason, but purely as punishment for Harvard’s speech, its perceived viewpoint, and its refusal to surrender its academic independence or relinquish its constitutional rights,” noted the university in its lawsuit against the Trump administration.
According to the lawsuit, “it is the latest act by the government in clear retaliation for Harvard exercising its First Amendment rights to reject the government’s demands to control Harvard’s governance, curriculum, and the ‘ideology’ of its faculty and students.”.
The revocation was required, according to DHS officials, because Harvard did not provide the Trump administration with information about international students, including disciplinary records.
“Enrolling international students and using their higher tuition fees to support their multibillion-dollar endowments is a privilege, not a right. Harvard had many opportunities to act morally. The answer was no. Last week, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem issued a statement.
Harvard is opposing the Trump administration’s move to freeze an additional $60 million in contracts and $2.02 billion in grants to the university. The next hearing in the Harvard lawsuit, which was filed in April to contest the funding freeze, is scheduled for July.
During the past two months, Trump has increased the pressure on the school by ordering his administration to terminate contracts with it, demanding information on international students, and threatening to revoke the school’s tax-exempt status. Trump proposed to limit the proportion of international students at Harvard to 15% of the total student body in an interview with reporters on Wednesday.
People who wish to attend Harvard and other universities are unable to do so because of the presence of international students. However, Trump stated that he wanted to ensure that the international students were capable of loving our nation.
