{shortcode-bd9e7b5bb5fda0ec42c8e8450eb762425b70ff24}
BOSTON — A federal judge extended her halt on Donald Trump’s entry ban on holders of Harvard-sponsored visas until next Monday at a hearing where lawyers for Harvard and the federal government sparred over whether the ban is constitutional.
The extension of the temporary restraining order will keep incoming international students’ authorization to enter the U.S. in place until U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs decides whether to cement the pause in a preliminary injunction. Burroughs said at Monday’s hearing that she will issue an opinion within a week.
Arguing at a federal courthouse in Boston’s Seaport district, Ian H. Gershengorn ’88, a lawyer for Harvard, said that Trump’s move both exceeded the president’s legal authority to police the nation’s borders and formed an unconstitutional attempt to censor the University.
The proclamation is “using Harvard’s international students as pawns,” Gershengorn said.
Burroughs appeared skeptical of arguments by Department of Justice lawyer Tiberius Davis, who argued that the entry ban fell well within the president’s powers to regulate immigration under federal law.
The White House’s attempts to freeze Harvard’s enrollment of international students — first by revoking its access to a federal visa database, and then by banning incoming foreign students from entering the country altogether — came two months after Harvard rejected demands by the federal government to reform its hiring and admissions practices. Weeks earlier, billions in federal research dollars to Harvard were also cut.
But Davis, appearing alone in court, argued that Harvard’s response to the government’s demands was not protected by the First Amendment.
“Rejection of an offer is not protected speech,” he said.
To meet the standard for a preliminary injunction, which would prevent the Trump administration’s actions from moving forward until Burroughs reaches a decision on the case, Harvard must show that it will sustain irreversible damage if the government’s actions remain in effect.
Burroughs noted that it would be an “uphill battle” for the federal government to dispute that its actions — whether they prove legal or not — had caused irreparable harm to the University and its students.
Burroughs had previously granted a temporary restraining order against the Department of Homeland Security’s attempt to revoke Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, which allows it to host international students and scholars.
She extended the TRO at a May 29 hearing but held off on granting Harvard its request for a preliminary injunction, which would stay the SEVP revocation until the court reaches a decision in the case. She asked Harvard and the federal government to first agree on terms for a preliminary injunction.
But the Trump administration continued to attack Harvard’s ability to enroll international students. Late on May 28, the DHS sent Harvard a separate 30-day notice of its intent to withdraw Harvard’s SEVP status — a move to circumvent Harvard’s argument that the initial revocation, which gave Harvard no chance to appeal and took effect immediately, was unlawful on procedural grounds.
And on June 4, Trump issued his proclamation banning international students from entering the U.S. on Harvard-sponsored visas. Burroughs granted Harvard’s request for a TRO on the proclamation the next day.
Both moves opened up new fronts in the legal battle. When Harvard and the federal government proposed language for a preliminary injunction to Burroughs last week, they disagreed on whether it should also block the government’s actions since Harvard’s initial lawsuit.
Harvard asked Burroughs to block Trump’s proclamation by preventing the government from undertaking any other “categorical restriction of Plaintiff’s authority to sponsor non-immigrant F visas or J visas” until the case is resolved. The University also asked Burroughs to put another 30-day pause on the DHS’s second SEVP revocation attempt.
In a competing draft, Justice Department lawyers excluded both conditions, pushing for a narrower injunction. The Trump administration has argued that the proclamation falls within the scope of presidential authority to make national security decisions.
—Staff writer Matan H. Josephy can be reached matan.josephy@thecrimson.com. Follow him on X @matanjosephy.
—Staff writer Laurel M. Shugart can be reached at laurel.shugart@thecrimson.com. Follow them on X @laurelmshugart.
