logo
US judge blocks Trump plan to close Harvard's doors to int'l students

US judge blocks Trump plan to close Harvard's doors to int'l students

A federal judge on Monday blocked President Donald Trump's administration from implementing his plan to bar foreign nationals from entering the United States to study at Harvard University.
US District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston issued an injunction barring Trump's administration from carrying out its latest bid to curtail Harvard's ability to host international students amid an escalating fight pitting the Republican president against the prestigious Ivy League school.
The preliminary injunction extends a temporary order the judge issued on June 5 that prevented the administration from enforcing a proclamation Trump signed a day earlier that cited national security concerns to justify why Harvard could no longer be trusted to host international students.
She ruled after Trump's Friday announcement that his administration could announce a deal with Harvard "over the next week or so" to resolve the White House's campaign against the university, which has waged a legal battle against the administration's various actions against the school.
Trump signed the proclamation after his administration had already frozen billions of dollars in funding to the oldest and wealthiest U.S. university, threatened Harvard's tax-exempt status and launched several investigations into the school.
The proclamation prohibited foreign nationals from entering the US to study at Harvard or participate in exchange visitor programs for an initial period of six months, and directed Secretary of State Marco Rubio to consider whether to revoke visas of international students already enrolled at Harvard.
But Burroughs said Trump's administration was likely violating Harvard's free speech rights under the US
Constitution's First Amendment by retaliating against it for refusing to meet its demands to cede control over the school's curriculum and admissions and by targeting it based on what officials viewed as the university's left-leaning orientation.
The judge said that "at its root, 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."
"Here, the government's misplaced efforts to control a reputable academic institution and squelch diverse viewpoints seemingly because they are, in some instances, opposed to this Administration's own views, threaten these rights," she wrote.
Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Harvard said the ruling will allow it to continue hosting international students and scholars while this case moves forward. It added it will continue to defend the rights of the school, its students and scholars.
The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The university has filed two separate lawsuits before Burroughs, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, seeking to unfreeze around $2.5 billion in funding and to prevent the administration from blocking the ability of international students to attend the university.
The latter lawsuit was filed after Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on May 22 announced that her department was immediately revoking Harvard's Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, which allows it to enroll foreign students.
Almost 6,800 international students attended Harvard in its most recent school year, making up about 27% of its student population.
Noem, without providing evidence, accused the university of "fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party."
Her action was temporarily blocked by Burroughs almost immediately. While the Department of Homeland Security has since shifted to challenging Harvard's certification through a lengthier administrative process, Burroughs at a May 29 hearing said she planned to issue an injunction to maintain the status quo, which she did officially on Friday.
A week after the hearing, Trump signed his proclamation, which cited concerns about Harvard's acceptance of foreign money including from China and what it said was an inadequate response by the school to his administration's demand for information on foreign students.
His administration has accused Harvard of creating an unsafe environment for Jewish students and allowing antisemitism to fester on its campus. Protests over U.S. ally Israel's treatment of Palestinians during its war in Gaza have roiled numerous universities' campuses, including Harvard's.
Rights advocates have noted rising antisemitism and Islamophobia in the U.S. due to the war. The Trump administration has thus far announced no action over anti-Arab and anti-Muslim hate. Harvard's own antisemitism and Islamophobia task forces found widespread fear and bigotry at the university in reports released in late April.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Supreme Court ruling sparks confusion over US birthright citizenship
Supreme Court ruling sparks confusion over US birthright citizenship

First Post

time36 minutes ago

  • First Post

Supreme Court ruling sparks confusion over US birthright citizenship

On Friday, the court's conservative majority approved President Donald Trump's request to limit the authority of federal judges but did not rule on the legality of his attempt to restrict birthright citizenship read more The U.S. Supreme Court's decision related to birthright citizenship led to confusion and calls to attorneys as individuals potentially impacted worked to understand a complex legal ruling with significant humanitarian consequences. On Friday, the court's conservative majority approved President Donald Trump's request to limit the authority of federal judges but did not rule on the legality of his attempt to restrict birthright citizenship. This outcome has created more uncertainty than clarity around a right long interpreted as protected by the U.S. Constitution: that anyone born in the United States is a citizen at birth, regardless of their parents' citizenship or immigration status. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Lorena, a 24-year-old Colombian asylum seeker who lives in Houston and is due to give birth in September, pored over media reports on Friday morning. She was looking for details about how her baby might be affected, but said she was left confused and worried. 'There are not many specifics,' said Lorena, who like others interviewed by Reuters asked to be identified by her first name out of fear for her safety. 'I don't understand it well.' She is concerned that her baby could end up with no nationality. 'I don't know if I can give her mine,' she said. 'I also don't know how it would work, if I can add her to my asylum case. I don't want her to be adrift with no nationality.' Trump, a Republican, issued an order after taking office in January that directed U.S. agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the U.S. who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order was blocked by three separate U.S. district court judges, sending the case on a path to the Supreme Court. The resulting decision said Trump's policy could go into effect in 30 days but appeared to leave open the possibility of further proceedings in the lower courts that could keep the policy blocked. On Friday afternoon, plaintiffs filed an amended lawsuit in federal court in Maryland seeking to establish a nationwide class of people whose children could be denied citizenship. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD If they are not blocked nationwide, the restrictions could be applied in the 28 states that did not contest them in court, creating 'an extremely confusing patchwork' across the country, according to Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst for the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute. 'Would individual doctors, individual hospitals be having to try to figure out how to determine the citizenship of babies and their parents?' she said. The drive to restrict birthright citizenship is part of Trump's broader immigration crackdown, and he has framed automatic citizenship as a magnet for people to come to give birth. 'Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason,' he said during a White House press briefing on Friday. Worried calls Immigration advocates and lawyers in some Republican-led states said they received calls from a wide range of pregnant immigrants and their partners following the ruling. They were grappling with how to explain it to clients who could be dramatically affected, given all the unknowns of how future litigation would play out or how the executive order would be implemented state by state. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Lynn Tramonte, director of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance said she got a call on Friday from an East Asian temporary visa holder with a pregnant wife. He was anxious because Ohio is not one of the plaintiff states and wanted to know how he could protect his child's rights. 'He kept stressing that he was very interested in the rights included in the Constitution,' she said. Advocates underscored the gravity of Trump's restrictions, which would block an estimated 150,000 children born in the U.S. annually from receiving automatic citizenship. 'It really creates different classes of people in the country with different types of rights,' said Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, a spokesperson for the immigrant rights organization United We Dream. 'That is really chaotic.' Adding uncertainty, the Supreme Court ruled that members of two plaintiff groups in the litigation - CASA, an immigrant advocacy service in Maryland, and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project - would still be covered by lower court blocks on the policy. Whether someone in a state where Trump's policy could go into effect could join one of the organizations to avoid the restrictions or how state or federal officials would check for membership remained unclear. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Betsy, a U.S. citizen who recently graduated from high school in Virginia and a CASA member, said both of her parents came to the U.S. from El Salvador two decades ago and lacked legal status when she was born. 'I feel like it targets these innocent kids who haven't even been born,' she said, declining to give her last name for concerns over her family's safety. Nivida, a Honduran asylum seeker in Louisiana, is a member of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and recently gave birth. She heard on Friday from a friend without legal status who is pregnant and wonders about the situation under Louisiana's Republican governor, since the state is not one of those fighting Trump's order. 'She called me very worried and asked what's going to happen,' she said. 'If her child is born in Louisiana … is the baby going to be a citizen?'

'At odds with Constitution': US Supreme Court judge Barrett on colleague's dissenting order in birthright citizenship case
'At odds with Constitution': US Supreme Court judge Barrett on colleague's dissenting order in birthright citizenship case

Time of India

timean hour ago

  • Time of India

'At odds with Constitution': US Supreme Court judge Barrett on colleague's dissenting order in birthright citizenship case

US Supreme Court The dissenting argument by US Supreme Court's justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in the birthright citizenship case is "at odds" with the United States Constitution, according to justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote the majority ruling in favour of curtailing the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions against Donald Trump's executive order, in what was a major win for the president. "We will not dwell on justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself," Barrett wrote in her order, according to Fox News. The conservative judge, a Trump appointee, was referring to Jackson's order in which the latter, who was appointed under the previous Joe Biden administration, wrote that nationwide injunctions against the birthright executive order should be permissible or else the courts would be allowing the president to "violate the Constitution." This argument, Barrett noted, was not based on any existing legal doctrine. "Such a vision of the judicial role would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush," she stated. The Supreme Court ruled by a 6-3 majority to restrict the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions, clearing the way for the controversial order to be enforced in the 28 states which had not challenged it, while keeping it temporarily blocked in 22 Democratic-led states. Lower courts will now have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the ruling. Enforcement of the policy can't take place for another 30 days, Barrett wrote.

Zohran Mamdani Isn't New York Mayor Yet But Already Faces MAGA's Heat
Zohran Mamdani Isn't New York Mayor Yet But Already Faces MAGA's Heat

NDTV

timean hour ago

  • NDTV

Zohran Mamdani Isn't New York Mayor Yet But Already Faces MAGA's Heat

Ever since Zohran Mamdani clinched a surprising victory in the Democratic primary for New York's mayoral polls, he has found himself in the crosshairs of Make America Great Again (MAGA) supporters. If elected in November, Mr Mamdani would become the first Muslim mayor in New York City's history. While many have opposed Zohran Mamdani's policies, such as supporting affordable housing, MAGA supporters are targeting him over his religious identity. Conservative social media personality Laura Loomer wrote, "New York City will be destroyed, Muslims will start committing jihad all over New York and that NYC is about to see 9/11 2.0." New York City just handed its Democrat mayoral primary to @ZohranKMamdani, a communist jihadi backed by New York's communist Attorney General Letitia James @TishJames and raised by a father who believes terrorism is justified as "anti-colonial resistance." Trevor Loudon… — Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) June 26, 2025 Islamophobic posts targeting Mamdani were shared by prominent MAGA faces such as Marjorie Taylor Greene, US representative for Georgia's 14th congressional district. She shared a post showing a digitally altered picture of the Statue of Liberty covered in a black burqa. This hits hard. — Marjorie Taylor Greene ???????? (@mtgreenee) June 25, 2025 Conservative activist Charlie Kirk also referred to the 9/11 attacks in a recent post. He wrote, "24 years ago a group of Muslims killed 2,753 people on 9/11. Now a Muslim Socialist is on pace to run New York City." 24 years ago a group of Muslims killed 2,753 people on 9/11 Now a Muslim Socialist is on pace to run New York City — Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) June 25, 2025 Sharing a picture of Zohran Mamdani from a social gathering, Republican Nancy Mace, a US Representative from South Carolina, wrote, "After 9/11 we said 'Never Forget.' I think we sadly have forgotten." After 9/11 we said "Never Forget." I think we sadly have forgotten. — Nancy Mace (@NancyMace) June 25, 2025 US President Donald Trump also launched a scathing attack on Mr Mamdani, calling him a 100 percent Communist Lunatic. He even criticized other progressive leaders who support Mr Mamdani, including Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) and Senator Chuck Schumer. Key policies proposed by Mamdani and why MAGA are backers opposing them? Zohran Mamdani is backed by the Democratic Socialists of America, and that alone makes him unpopular among MAGA supporters. Where Trump seeks tight border control, an anti-refugee stance and a Muslim ban, Mamdani fights for immigrant rights and pro-refugee policies. Housing for all: Zohran Mamdani supports rent control, the construction of affordable houses for particularly low or middle-income classes and protection of tenants from eviction. MAGA supporters generally favour free market housing policies and landlords' rights. Anti-war policy: One of the key reasons MAGA supporters oppose Mamdani is that he openly accuses Israel of committing genocide in Gaza, which deeply angers the conservatives who are strongly pro-Israel. Taxes: While Mamdani has proposed a two percent tax on wealthy individuals to fund public services, MAGA bats for lower taxes and minimal government intervention. During a Democratic debate, Zohran Mamdani called himself Trump's worst nightmare, positioning himself as a progressive, Muslim immigrant who actively fights for social justice. He also criticised Trump's immigration policies, describing them as authoritarian.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store