Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Ban on International Students at Harvard
A federal judge has temporarily blocked former President Donald Trump’s latest attempt to bar international students from attending Harvard University, offering the prestigious institution a significant, if temporary, legal victory in its ongoing battles with the Trump administration.
Late Thursday evening, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Trump’s recently signed proclamation that would have suspended the ability of new international students to enter the United States and attend Harvard. The decision came just hours after the university filed an emergency request, warning that the proclamation would cause immediate and irreparable harm to the school and its academic mission.
Judge Burroughs, appointed by President Barack Obama, wrote in her brief order that the university faced urgent damage and that immediate judicial intervention was necessary to protect its interests. She noted the order would remain in effect until the court hears more detailed arguments in a scheduled mid-June hearing.
A Direct Hit on Harvard’s International Community
The proclamation in question, signed by Trump a day earlier, targeted the visas that international students use to study in the U.S.—primarily F, M, and J visas. Harvard’s legal team swiftly amended an ongoing lawsuit it had previously filed against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), challenging the administration’s earlier attempts to exclude the university from the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP).
The amended complaint accuses the Trump administration of retaliating against Harvard for ideological reasons, claiming that this new proclamation is a continuation of a broader campaign to punish elite academic institutions. According to Harvard, approximately 25% of its student body consists of international students, making the potential impact of the proclamation both immediate and far-reaching.
“With the stroke of a pen, the DHS Secretary and the President have sought to erase a quarter of Harvard’s student body,” the lawsuit says. “Without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard.”
Allegations of Constitutional Violations
Harvard’s legal filing argues that the proclamation violates the First Amendment by interfering with academic freedom and freedom of association. The university contends that the government’s actions are part of a targeted campaign of retaliation, not a genuine effort to protect national security.
“The proclamation is not a lawful exercise of presidential authority,” the lawsuit reads. “Rather, it is a government vendetta against Harvard cloaked in the language of national security.”
The Trump administration, in its announcement, claimed the action was necessary to safeguard the United States, citing a provision of immigration law that allows the president to restrict entry of any class of noncitizens if their presence is deemed harmful to national interests. However, Harvard pushed back, arguing that the order singles out their institution without evidence that its international students pose any specific threat.
“Nonimmigrants may still enter the U.S. without restriction,” the complaint asserts, “as long as they are not coming to Harvard.”
Harvard’s President Speaks Out
In a message to the university community, Harvard’s president, Alan Garber, described the move as “yet another illegal step” taken by the Trump administration to retaliate against the university. He emphasized the valuable role international students play in Harvard’s academic and cultural life.
“Our international students and scholars make outstanding contributions both in and outside of the classroom,” Garber wrote. “They enrich our academic mission, strengthen our global partnerships, and embody the values of openness and excellence that define our institution.”
Garber added that Harvard would continue to support affected students and scholars, pledging to defend their rights and advocate for a legal resolution to protect their status.
Origins of the Legal Dispute
Harvard’s legal battle with the Trump administration began in late May when the Department of Homeland Security announced it would revoke the university’s certification under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program. The move would have effectively prevented Harvard from enrolling any new international students.
In response, Harvard filed an initial lawsuit accusing the administration of clear and deliberate retaliation, citing the university’s resistance to certain ideological policies promoted by the White House. Just hours after the lawsuit was filed, Judge Burroughs stepped in to block DHS from implementing the decertification.
Last week, the judge issued another order barring the administration from making any changes to Harvard’s student visa program until further notice.
But according to Harvard’s amended complaint, Trump’s proclamation was an attempt to circumvent that court order. “What the DHS Secretary sought to take away on the back end, the President is now trying to take away on the front end,” the document says, referring to the administration’s two-pronged strategy.
A Broader Attack on Higher Education?
Harvard isn’t just battling the administration over student visas. The university has also filed a separate lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s decision to freeze more than $2.2 billion in federal funding and threaten the loss of additional funding. In that case, also overseen by Judge Burroughs, it is set to go before the court next month.
The White House has accused Harvard of failing to address rising antisemitism on campus and claimed the university has prioritized diversity, equity, and inclusion in ways that amount to discrimination. Trump has repeatedly criticized elite universities, suggesting they promote left-leaning ideologies that contradict American values.
In an unusual move, Trump’s proclamation singled out Harvard by name, claiming the school had failed to maintain a safe and inclusive environment for Jewish students. The Department of Education has since warned other colleges of potential penalties if they do not take sufficient action to protect Jewish students, particularly in the wake of rising campus protests related to Middle East conflicts.
Visa Screening Intensifies
The same day Judge Burroughs blocked the DHS from revoking Harvard’s SEVP certification, the State Department reportedly sent a confidential cable to U.S. embassies and consulates worldwide. The cable instructed diplomatic officials to increase scrutiny of all Harvard-related visa applications.
According to the lawsuit, the cable—which referred to the directive as a “pilot program”—applies only to Harvard and requires consular officers to conduct full reviews of applicants’ online activity and social media presence. This includes current and prospective students, faculty, visiting scholars, and even tourists visiting Harvard.
Applicants were told they should make their social media accounts public. Those who do not use social media or who maintain private profiles may be viewed as suspicious or evasive, according to the lawsuit, and their visa applications may be denied on that basis alone.
The complaint notes that this kind of invasive scrutiny is not applied uniformly to other institutions, reinforcing the university’s claim that it is being unfairly targeted.
Legal and Educational Implications
Legal experts say the case could have far-reaching consequences—not only for Harvard but also for other institutions that rely on international students and scholars.
“Universities across the country are watching this case very closely,” said Daniel Goldberg, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University. “If the government can single out a specific school and revoke its ability to admit foreign students based on vague national security concerns, then no institution is safe from political retaliation.”
International students contribute significantly to U.S. academia and the broader economy. According to the NAFSA: Association of International Educators, international students added over $30 billion to the U.S. economy in recent years and supported hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Beyond economics, many experts argue that international students enrich the intellectual and cultural life of American campuses. They also serve as global ambassadors who return to their home countries with a deeper understanding of U.S. values and education.
What’s Next?
The temporary restraining order remains in place until Judge Burroughs holds a hearing in mid-June to decide whether to extend the block indefinitely. In the meantime, Harvard’s legal team continues to build its case, and the university has vowed to provide direct support to all students potentially affected by the proclamation.
The court’s decision could set an important precedent in balancing presidential authority over immigration with constitutional protections for academic institutions.
For now, Harvard remains defiant.
“In the face of this unlawful proclamation,” President Garber wrote, “we will continue to stand with our international students, defend our community, and uphold the principles of academic freedom and human dignity.”
