{shortcode-0a1f5c8a2388cceb7c6ae67ae8607c8bb4fd569f}
The Trump administration abruptly ended Harvard’s ability to enroll international students on Thursday — jeopardizing the legal status of more than one in four students on campus. Less than a day later, the University swung back in court.
Harvard sued the federal government on Friday morning, asking a judge to rule that an order from the Department of Homeland Security halting Harvard’s ability to enroll students on certain visas next fall was illegal.
University lawyers simultaneously motioned to temporarily block the government move immediately, writing that “countless academic programs, research laboratories, clinics, and courses” have been thrown into chaos by the order.
It took less than two hours for a judge to agree, freezing the Trump administration’s efforts to cut off international enrollment at Harvard until the two sides could meet at a set of hearings next week.
“Without its international students,” lawyers for Harvard wrote in a Friday court filing, “Harvard is not Harvard.”
While Harvard Law School professor Noah R. Feldman ’92 said it is likely that the courts will extend the temporary restraining order, the legal battle will only increase the strain on a university already embroiled in a high-profile standoff with the White House.
The court battle between the University and the Trump administration escalates a monthslong dispute between the two over a list of demands sent by the federal government to Harvard concerning data collected on international students. New documents from Harvard’s lawsuit reveal that the University complied with many of the government’s requests, providing international student enrollment data and limited disciplinary records.
Here’s what to know about the buildup to, and implications of, Harvard’s second major legal battle with the Trump administration.
What is Harvard’s Dispute with the Department of Homeland Security?
On April 16, Harvard leadership received a startling letter from Kristi Noem, the Secretary of Homeland Security: Hand over a trove of information on your international students, Noem demanded, or lose them.
The letter threatened to revoke Harvard’s certification governing access to the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, a federally-run database that schools need to manage information about their international students.
To keep access, the Trump administration demanded that Harvard share the disciplinary, legal, and academic records of visa holders. If Harvard did not comply, the administration wrote that it would label the move a “voluntary withdrawal” from the federal database that the University could not appeal.
A tug-of-war quickly followed. Harvard ultimately agreed to send the federal government limited information about international students on April 30 — the DHS’ deadline for a response.
According to court documents, Harvard submitted records “that reflect student enrollment” for individuals on F-1 visas, as well as “SEVIS termination and cancellation data” detailing changes to students’ immigration status on April 30. But lawyers for Harvard claimed in the email that they were not required by federal law to provide explanations for disciplinary actions.
Their response was not enough. In a May 7 email, the Trump administration claimed that the University failed to fully comply with its request, further threatening the University’s SEVP access.
The DHS wrote that Harvard still needed to send the government information on four fronts: international students’ legal activity, “dangerous or violent activity,” and “known deprivation of rights of” or “threats” made towards others at Harvard – without requesting information on international students’ protest and academic records.
Harvard claimed in court that it “conducted a search and again produced additional responsive information” after the May 7 letter, and did so again on May 14 after a “follow-up request” from the federal government.
Before its May 14 submission, lawyers for Harvard asked administration officials if they had intended to expand the legal scope of the government’s request by asking for expansive data on the criminal records, degree status, and employer information of international students.
Emails submitted by Harvard as part of its lawsuit reveal that Homeland Security officials responded on May 14, the day documents were due, and claimed that their original request had already asked for such information.
In its May 14 submission, Harvard wrote it was unaware of any criminal convictions against students on F- or J- visas. The University provided the SEVIS number of one former undergraduate who was disciplined for “inappropriate social behavior involving physical violence,” as well as noting two student athletes on F-1 visas who were placed on probation in 2025.
“We do not believe this is the type of conduct your inquiry seeks but can provide more information upon request,” Harvard’s lawyers wrote of the athletes’ cases.
Even after the submissions, Noem ultimately decided to revoke Harvard’s SEVIS certification, claiming that the University failed to provide adequate information. Harvard’s lawyers argue that “DHS deemed Harvard’s responses ‘insufficient’ — without explaining why or citing any regulation with which Harvard failed to comply.”
Feldman said the government failed to “cite the regulations it claimed had been violated” following its May 7 request — a detail which may ultimately prove decisive to the University’s case.
“That violates the Administrative Procedures Act, as well as the due process clause of the Constitution,” he said.
DHS assistant secretary for public affairs Tricia McLaughlin wrote in a statement that Friday’s ruling “delays justice and seeks to kneecap the President’s constitutionally vested powers under Article II.”
“We have the law, the facts, and common sense on our side,” she added.
Constitutional Questions
Core to the University’s suit is an even larger argument: that the Trump administration’s crackdown on Harvard violates the First Amendment.
“The government has casually discarded core First Amendment protections, the protections of procedural due process, and DHS’s own regulations to immediate and devastating effect for Harvard and its community,” Harvard wrote in its lawsuit.
In particular, Harvard’s lawsuit singles out the issue of academic freedom as a core principle of the First Amendment, which it claims the government has trampled on.
“Colleges and universities have a constitutionally protected right to manage an academic community and evaluate teaching and scholarship free from governmental interference,” Harvard wrote.
The University’s forceful rejection of the Trump administration on constitutional grounds has raised the stakes of its confrontation with the White House.
If Harvard accepted the DHS’ demands, it would set a new standard for the federal government’s ability to exert control over academia by ceding student records without the pressure of a court order. But if the University rejected the effort, it risked jeopardizing the status of thousands of undergraduate and graduate students.
Harvard, ultimately, chose the latter. But they claimed that in presenting the University with a choice, the Trump administration “effectively conditioned Harvard’s SEVP certification on the University’s relinquishing of its constitutional rights.”
How Could This Affect the University?
If the Trump administration’s decision were to go into effect, it would have devastating impacts for Harvard and its international population.
Harvard hosts more than 7,000 students studying on a visa. In its suit, the University claims that the government has used those visa holders as “pawns in the government’s escalating campaign of retaliation.”
A ban on international enrollment would also place all of Harvard’s international students currently in the U.S. at risk of deportation, according to a DHS press release.
Harvard framed much of its argument in the lawsuit around perceived threats to the University’s reputation and its students. In Harvard’s lawsuit, University lawyers claimed that a ban on international students would cripple Harvard by diminishing its research output, academic offerings, and ability to compete with other schools.
“Defendants’ actions — unless halted by this Court — will cause an imminent, concrete, and irreparable injury to Harvard, its students and faculty, and its ability to achieve its educational mission,” Harvard’s lawyers wrote in their lawsuit.
The administration’s move also poses a significant financial risk for Harvard. According to the nonprofit Institute for International Education, foreign students are more likely to pay full tuition at universities across the United States. As Harvard has already lost nearly $3 billion in its federal funding, Thursday’s ban could significantly worsen the University’s existing financial strain.
What Comes Next for Harvard?
With the University back in court against the federal government, its international students are left without a clear path forward.
A federal judge has granted Harvard a temporary restraining order — effectively, an immediate block on the Trump administration’s policy that lasts pending a hearing. The two sides will meet in court next week, at a hearing in Boston on Harvard’s Commencement Day, to argue over whether the judge’s order should be extended.
“The Trump administration will have to decide if they’re going to appeal the temporary restraining order,” Feldman, the HLS professor, said. “If they do, they’ll appeal that to the First Circuit, where they’ll lose, and then they might appeal to the Supreme Court, where I predict they would still lose.”
Even if Harvard picks up wins against the Trump administration in court, the White House’s no-holds-barred assault on the nation’s oldest university may still send students reeling.
It will take a longer legal battle — potentially with a trial — to decide whether the TRO becomes permanent. That process will continue to destabilize the lives of Harvard’s thousands of international students, whose enrollment may be conditioned on the whims of a federal court for months on end — though ongoing litigation could simultaneously protect their time at Harvard for longer.
The fight over international students may further erode any good will that remains between the University’s leadership and the White House.
Harvard currently faces nearly a dozen investigations by the Trump administration and Congress, and may continue to stare down probes and funding cuts. Even if those are all challenged in court, they could continue to sink Harvard into expensive and high-profile fights with an administration that has continued to dig in its heels.
—Staff writer Elyse C. Goncalves can be reached at elyse.goncalves@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @e1ysegoncalves.
—Staff writer Matan H. Josephy can be reached matan.josephy@thecrimson.com. Follow him on X @matanjosephy.
