Judge Blocks Trump Administration’s Move to Bar Harvard from Enrolling International Students

A federal judge has temporarily halted a controversial decision by the Trump administration to revoke Harvard University’s ability to enroll international students, marking the latest flashpoint in a growing battle between the federal government and one of America’s most prestigious academic institutions.

US District Judge Allison Burroughs issued a temporary restraining order just hours after Harvard filed a legal complaint on Friday. The university challenged the Department of Homeland Security’s abrupt move to terminate its certification in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), a key requirement for hosting foreign students.

Harvard’s lawsuit argues that the administration’s action represents an unlawful and politically motivated act of retribution for the university’s resistance to a set of ideologically driven federal demands. The complaint also frames the revocation as a violation of Harvard’s First Amendment rights and due process under federal law.

Burroughs, appointed during the Obama administration, stated in her ruling that the university demonstrated it would suffer “immediate and irreparable injury” if stripped of its SEVP certification before the court could evaluate the matter further. A hearing to determine whether to impose a preliminary injunction is scheduled for May 29 in Boston.

A Broader Conflict Over Autonomy and Policy

The legal conflict emerges amid wider tensions between the Trump administration and elite academic institutions. The White House has accused Harvard of failing to adequately address antisemitism on campus and demanded changes to its admissions and hiring practices. The administration has also criticized the university’s diversity and inclusion initiatives, which it perceives as discriminatory against conservative viewpoints.

The Department of Homeland Security, under the leadership of Secretary Kristi Noem, asserted that Harvard failed to comply with a recent request for disciplinary records involving foreign students, deeming the university’s response “insufficient.” However, Harvard maintains that it submitted the requested information and was given no chance to respond before being abruptly removed from the SEVP.

“The revocation notice provided no opportunity for Harvard to contest the decision, present supporting evidence, or demonstrate compliance,” the lawsuit claims.

This legal maneuver is not Harvard’s first against the federal government. In a separate but related case, Judge Burroughs is also overseeing the university’s challenge to a $2.65 billion freeze in federal research and grant funding imposed by the administration. While Harvard has yet to request immediate relief in that case, the cumulative legal pressure underscores what the university describes as a pattern of political retaliation.

Fallout for International Students

The implications for Harvard’s international students—who comprise over 27% of the student body—are substantial. The university currently hosts approximately 6,800 students from abroad, with significant representation from countries such as China, India, Canada, South Korea, and the UK.

For many of these students, the administration’s move sparked intense anxiety and uncertainty. Without SEVP certification, Harvard cannot issue the I-20 forms necessary for student visa processing, effectively jeopardizing the legal status of current students and the plans of incoming ones.

Alan Garber, Harvard’s interim president, issued a strongly worded statement decrying the decision. “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,” he said. “We condemn this unlawful and unwarranted action.”

International students, some of whom were preparing for graduation, expressed feelings of fear and displacement. Rohan Battula, a junior from the UK planning to work in New York this summer, chose to remain on campus amid fears that travel might prevent his return. “It’s surreal to think that, for a moment, we were considered unlawfully present in a country where we’re earning a degree,” he told the BBC.

Isaac Bangura, a public administration student from Sierra Leone, shared that the threat of deportation unsettled his young children. “They’ve been asking if we’re being sent home again,” he said, recalling the trauma of surviving a civil war before moving to the US with his family.

Political Reactions and Financial Stakes

The White House responded sharply to the court ruling. Deputy press secretary Abigail Jackson accused the judge of promoting a “liberal agenda” and criticized Harvard for failing to address what she termed the presence of “anti-American, anti-Semitic, pro-terrorist agitators” on campus. “These unelected judges have no right to block the Trump administration’s immigration and national security policies,” she added.

Homeland Security officials reinforced their stance, with Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin stating, “This lawsuit seeks to kneecap the President’s constitutionally vested powers. It is a privilege—not a right—for universities to enroll foreign students and profit from inflated tuition payments.”

President Trump, addressing reporters at the White House, hinted at further scrutiny of other institutions. “Harvard is going to have to change its ways,” he said. “So are some others.”

Beyond reputational damage and student distress, the policy shift also threatens Harvard’s financial structure. International students typically pay full tuition, which can exceed $100,000 annually when including housing, meals, and other expenses—revenues that often subsidize financial aid for domestic students. A loss in international enrollment would likely have deep fiscal implications.

A Legal Battle With National Implications

The case is emblematic of broader debates over academic freedom, immigration policy, and the limits of executive authority. Legal scholars suggest that Harvard has strong footing in the lower courts, particularly in Massachusetts, which has historically ruled against similar federal actions. However, should the dispute escalate to the Supreme Court, the outcome becomes less certain.

Harvard has already made some concessions under pressure—reportedly dismissing certain leaders from its Center for Middle Eastern Studies. At the same time, the university has fortified its legal team with prominent Republican attorneys, including Robert Hur, a former special counsel in the Biden documents inquiry.

Harvard’s Vice Provost for International Affairs, Mark Elliott, emphasized the broader stakes: “There is simply no substitute for the presence and contributions of international students. Unless the court intervenes swiftly, future generations may view Harvard—and the United States—as too unstable a choice for higher education.”