{shortcode-05c75a159fc2d0deae6622633e24af3c1ac3f7e6}
The government asked a judge to vacate her temporary block on President Donald Trump’s proclamation banning international students from entering the United States on Harvard-sponsored visas in a memorandum submitted early Saturday morning.
The 38-page brief, which was filed after 2 a.m. Saturday, argues that the Immigration and Nationality Act and Supreme Court precedent grant the president broad authority to restrict entry to the U.S.
The brief cited the Trump administration’s well-trodden complaints against Harvard, arguing that pro-Palestine student protests fueled antisemitism and that crime on campus has risen, making Harvard an unsuitable host for international students.
There is no evidence to suggest that international students contributed to rising crime, and protests have included both American and international students. But the Trump administration argued that the law only requires a determination by the president that allowing a class of noncitizens into the U.S. would harm the national interest — and that the matter is not subject to the courts.
The brief was a clear effort to move legal arguments into the realm of national security, where the president is generally recognized to have wide latitude, and avoid Harvard’s claims that the proclamation was retaliation against the University for exercising its First Amendment rights.
“That Harvard has now become the subject of an immigration-related enforcement action is neither discriminatory nor retaliatory,” the government’s lawyers wrote. “It reflects considered enforcement discretion directed to address well-founded national-security concerns, which courts cannot question.”
Trump’s proclamation was only the most recent step in his administration’s campaign against Harvard’s international students. Harvard first sued the defendants — including the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Justice Department, the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, and officials at each — on May 23, one day after the DHS revoked its certification to host international students.
The judge overseeing the case, Allison D. Burroughs, granted the University a temporary restraining order the same day to keep its certification in place. She extended the TRO at a May 29 hearing and indicated that she would be willing to grant a preliminary injunction, maintaining Harvard’s status until she reaches a decision.
And on June 5, she granted a separate TRO blocking Trump’s proclamation — the matter at issue in the Saturday filing.
Justice Department attorneys, representing the Department of Homeland Security, argued that Trump’s June 4 order stemmed from concerns over Harvard’s “institutional noncompliance” with immigration regulations and its “entanglements with foreign adversaries.” In the filing, the lawyers cited what they described as Harvard’s failure to discipline students involved in antisemitism incidents, its lack of cooperation with federal requests for visa compliance records, and broader risks tied to foreign state influence on campus. These concerns, prosecutors said, justified Trump’s decision to temporarily bar new international admissions.
The government drew heavily on the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Trump v. Hawaii, which upheld a presidential entry ban and limited the scope of judicial review when the president invokes national security under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Citing that precedent, the Justice Department contended that Trump’s order against Harvard was insulated from challenges based on alleged retaliatory motive.
While Harvard claimed that the order was retaliation for its refusal to accept federal demands and instead mount a lawsuit, the government countered that the June 4 order had been issued weeks later by a different decision-maker. Harvard has maintained that the various federal agencies acting against it have received instructions from the White House — and cited Trump’s own pattern of hostile comments toward the University and its international students.
The government, however, argued that Trump’s efforts to withhold federal grants had no connection to the immigration order at issue in the case, which they said was a matter of national security. Harvard is currently fighting twelve federal agencies in another lawsuit over the administration’s multibillion dollar cuts to its research funding.
Harvard has argued that Trump’s June 4 proclamation was an attempt to circumvent Burroughs’ earlier TRO blocking the DHS’s actions. But Justice Department lawyers pushed back, writing that Trump’s order relied on entirely separate statutory authority and targeted only new admits, not the broader visa programs.
Officials further emphasized in the brief that the now-blocked order did not revoke current student visas, included exemptions, and was set to expire in six months — factors they said distinguished it from broader entry bans previously struck down in court.
The Trump administration also rejected the notion that Harvard was being singled out. While acknowledging the University’s prominence, government lawyers argued that other institutions — public and private alike — had come under scrutiny for similar failures to address campus unrest and comply with federal oversight. The filing did not identify any other institutions by name.
Though Trump has targeted international students across American universities, Harvard is the only institution whose ability to enroll international students has been formally restricted.
The brief also challenged Harvard’s standing to seek a preliminary injunction, arguing that the University could not claim to assert the constitutional rights of prospective students. The government contended that Harvard was unlikely to win the suit on First Amendment grounds — a factor that would weigh against granting a preliminary injunction.
In the brief, Justice Department attorneys suggested that Harvard could avoid irreparable harm by enrolling more domestic students. Harvard could lift the restrictions at any time by turning over data that the DHS requested before revoking Harvard’s SEVP status, the government wrote.
The requested information includes international students’ disciplinary records and audio and video footage of international students participating in protests over the past five years.
—Staff writer Dhruv T. Patel can be reached at dhruv.patel@thecrimson.com. Follow him on X @dhruvtkpatel.
