{shortcode-357723199f3f80b5554603c58f0bd5876652dc12}
Updated May 23, 2025, at 1:05 p.m.
Harvard sued the Trump administration Friday morning and filed a temporary restraining order shortly to stop the Department of Homeland Security from revoking its certification to enroll international students.
In the 72-page suit, Harvard accused the DHS of carrying out an “unprecedented and retaliatory” act that threatens to upend the lives of thousands of students just days before graduation. More than 7,000 students study at Harvard on a visa.
Harvard President Alan M. Garber ’76 wrote in a morning message to affiliates that the revocation is both “unlawful and unwarranted.”
“It imperils the futures of thousands of students and scholars across Harvard and serves as a warning to countless others at colleges and universities throughout the country who have come to America to pursue their education and fulfill their dreams,” he added.
The legal maneuver comes less than 24 hours after the DHS informed Harvard it was no longer certified under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program — a designation the University has held without interruption for more than 70 years — over allegations of campus antisemitism and race-based discrimination. Hours after the lawsuit was filed, a federal judge granted Harvard’s request for a temporary restraining order.
Without SEVP status, current and prospective international students would need to transfer to another university or lose their ability to stay in the United States legally.
In its court filing, Harvard described the decertification as a politically motivated act of retaliation carried out “without process or cause,” aimed at coercing the University into imposing ideological litmus tests on its admissions, hiring, and academic programs.
“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,” the lawsuit states.
Harvard argued that the revocation of its SEVP status also violated the First Amendment by infringing on the University’s academic freedom and retaliating against Harvard for engaging in constitutionally protected speech.
The Friday morning lawsuit is Harvard’s second legal challenge to the Trump administration, following a lawsuit against the White House over multibillion dollar cuts to the University’s research funding. A hearing date for the first lawsuit is set for July 21 after a federal judge agreed to expedite the process, but more than $2.7 billion in federal funding remains frozen.
In its request for a TRO, which would temporarily block the DHS’ order while the matter proceeds through court, Harvard argued that the order would cause “immediate and irreparable harm” to the University, and claimed the government’s actions were driven by political retaliation rather than legitimate enforcement.
“While in many cases, one might need discovery to unearth evidence of forbidden motivation, here numerous officials up to and including the President laid their retaliatory motive bare,” the motion states.
In the lawsuit, Harvard set up its case for the TRO that the DHS’ order would “seriously and immediately disrupt the University’s ongoing, day-to-day operations.” Revoking Harvard’s SEVP certification would displace the F-1 and J-1 student and exchange visa holders who study at Harvard and serve as instructors, advisers, and medical care providers, the lawsuit argued.
If a judge does not approve Harvard’s request for a TRO by Sunday, the DHS could move forward with terminating the visa status of thousands of international students enrolled at the University.
If carried out, the change “impairs the educational experience of all Harvard students by diminishing the global character and overall strength of the institution,” the University’s lawyers argued.
Harvard also claimed that decertification would place it at a “competitive disadvantage” relative to peer schools in the admissions process, arguing that it could be prevented from admitting visa holders for two years and that international students could remain wary of applying to Harvard for far longer.
Harvard’s lawyers alleged in the Friday suit that the DHS did not follow legally required procedures or afford the University basic due process protections before revoking its SEVP certification.
The DHS justified its revocation by alleging that Harvard’s response to a sprawling records request on April 16 was “insufficient” — and that Harvard “ignored” a second request issued to Harvard after its first submission.
But in the lawsuit and Garber’s email, Harvard insisted that it had complied with the DHS’ request, citing two document productions on April 30 and May 14.
The DHS’ request asked for eight categories of information on international students, including data regarding their disciplinary records, protest participation, and documentation of “dangerous or violent activity.” Harvard officials have repeatedly declined to specify which documents the University turned over to the DHS on April 30.
On May 7, the DHS notified Harvard that the department considered the initial submission “incomplete” and “asked for four of the eight categories of information referenced in the initial request,” according to Harvard’s lawsuit.
The University conducted a second search and “again produced additional responsive information,” according to the lawsuit. Harvard’s second document submission, on May 14, was not publicly disclosed until Friday.
The lawsuit named the DHS, the Department of Justice, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Department of State as defendants. Harvard is represented in the case by Robert K. Hur ’95 and William A. Burck, both of whom previously served in high-level roles under United States President Donald Trump, alongside attorneys from Jenner & Block and Lehotsky Keller Cohn.
The DHS’ decertification letter cited allegations of a hostile campus environment at Harvard, including claims of antisemitism incidents and enforcement of what it called “radical” diversity, equity, and inclusion politics. It also referenced Harvard’s alleged failure to vet international students for ideological leanings.
But the University forcefully denied those accusations on Friday, stating that the government offered no evidence of regulatory violations and instead sought to punish Harvard for refusing to comply with the Trump administration’s demands last month.
The suit also noted that Trump publicly called for revoking Harvard’s tax-exempt status in an April 15 post on Truth Social. Just one day later, DHS delivered the April 16 records request, which the University said included unprecedented demands far outside the scope of existing regulations.
Correction: May 23, 2025
A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that Harvard’s counsel in the May 23 lawsuit includes attorneys from Ropes & Gray. In fact, Harvard’s legal team draws on the firms Lehotsky Keller Cohn and Jenner & Block, but not Ropes & Gray.
—Staff writer Dhruv T. Patel can be reached at dhruv.patel@thecrimson.com. Follow him on X @dhruvtkpatel.
—Staff writer Grace E. Yoon can be reached at grace.yoon@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @graceunkyoon.
