[Gavel Auction Law. Photo credit to Pixabay]

On May 30th, 2025, the U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs extended a court order that prevented the Trump Administration from revoking Harvard University’s certification to enroll international students. 

This follows the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) abrupt decision to decertify Harvard’s participation in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), a decision that could have forced over 7,000 international students to leave the school or transfer elsewhere. 

Harvard sued the Trump Administration, asserting that the action was politically motivated and violated administrative law and its First Amendment rights. 

The university argued that the DHS’s attempt to decertify its participation in SEVP stemmed from retaliation against Harvard’s public opposition to the Trump Administration’s policies, in particular to those involving immigration and online learning during the coronavirus pandemic in 2019. 

Harvard’s legal team stressed that such a drastic measure would not only interrupt the education of thousands of students but also harm the institution’s global reputation. 

Judge Burroughs agreed to extend the temporary restraining order, noting that the government’s action raised “serious legal questions” about whether the administration had exceeded its authority and targeted Harvard without any proper justification. 

In her ruling, she also emphasizes the importance of maintaining stability for international students, many of whom had already endured  prolonged uncertainty due to the pandemic and the complexities of the student visa process. 

This case has widespread national and international attention, especially particularly academic institutions and advocacy organizations. 

Several universities have also filed amicus briefs in support of Harvard, warning that the DHS’s approach set a dangerous precedent for federal overreach into academic affairs. 

International students, many of whom make substantial contributions to research and innovation in the United States, expressed their deep concerns over the potential consequences of the Administration’s stance. 

Legal experts noted that the lawsuit touches on broader constitutional issues; Harvard alleged violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), arguing that the DHS’s decision lacked a rational explanation to standard rulemaking procedures. 

Additionally, Harvard claimed that the move infringed on its First Amendment rights by penalizing the university for its speech and institutional positions. 

The Trump Administration, in response, denied any political motivations behind the DHS directive and argued that the agency possesses broad authority in regulating institutions that enroll international students. 

Judge Borrough’s decision to extend the restraining order buys Harvard more time to prepare its case and seek a more permanent injunction. 

For now, the ruling ensures that the international students at Harvard can continue their studies without immediate threat of deportation or forced transfer. 

This specific case is now seen as a critical test of the balance between federal regulatory authority and institutional autonomy, particularly in the field of higher education. 

As such proceedings unfold, the outcome could influence how future administrations interact with universities and establish boundaries for the treatment of international students, who have increasingly become entangled in broader debates over immigration. 

While the immediate threat has been temporarily averted by the school, the long-term implications remain in uncertainty. 

Harvard’s legal battle may ultimately end up in the higher courts, potentially establishing legal precedent for years to come.