Boston, Massachusetts, May 29, 2025 – A federal judge in Boston has issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration’s attempt to revoke Harvard University’s ability to enroll international students, a move the Ivy League school decried as unconstitutional retaliation. U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs, an Obama appointee, granted the injunction on May 29, following a temporary restraining order issued on May 23, ensuring that Harvard’s roughly 6,800 international students—27% of its student body—can remain enrolled pending the lawsuit’s outcome. The decision marks a significant setback for President Donald Trump’s efforts to pressure elite universities, with Harvard at the center of a broader campaign targeting academic institutions.
Background of the Case
On May 22, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), led by Secretary Kristi Noem, revoked Harvard’s certification under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), which authorizes U.S. universities to enroll foreign students on F-1 visas. The move, effective for the 2025-2026 academic year, barred Harvard from admitting new international students and required current ones to transfer or risk losing legal status. DHS cited Harvard’s alleged failure to provide disciplinary records of foreign students and accused the university of fostering “anti-American, pro-terrorist agitators” and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party, claims Harvard denied.
Harvard filed a lawsuit on May 23 in federal court in Boston, arguing the revocation violated its First Amendment rights by punishing the university for resisting White House demands to control its governance, curriculum, and faculty ideology. The suit named DHS Secretary Noem, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Attorney General Pam Bondi as defendants. Harvard President Alan Garber called the action a “blatant violation” of academic freedom, stating, “Without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard.”
Court’s Ruling and Reaction
Judge Burroughs’ temporary restraining order on May 23 halted the policy after Harvard demonstrated “immediate and irreparable injury” to its students and academic mission. On May 29, she escalated the relief by issuing a preliminary injunction, preserving Harvard’s SEVP certification while the case proceeds. Hearings on May 27 and 29 addressed the urgency of the issue, with Burroughs noting the need to maintain the status quo. A remote conference is set for June 3, with arguments for a permanent injunction to follow, potentially coinciding with Harvard’s commencement.
The White House and DHS reacted sharply. Spokesperson Abigail Jackson accused Burroughs of pushing a “liberal agenda,” stating, “Unelected judges have no right to stop the Trump Administration’s control over immigration and national security policy.” Noem called the ban a “warning” to other universities, adding, “Enrolling foreign students is a privilege, not a right.” Trump, speaking on May 23, hinted at expanding restrictions to other institutions, saying, “Harvard’s going to have to change its ways. So are some others.”
Impact on International Students
Harvard’s international students, hailing from over 100 countries including China (1,203 students in 2024), Canada, India, and the UK, faced significant uncertainty. Students like Isaac Bangura from Sierra Leone, who moved to Harvard with his family, expressed fears of deportation, with his children asking if they would be “returned home.” Chinese students canceled flights and sought legal advice, while German officials, including former Harvard alumnus Karl Lauterbach, labeled the ban “research policy suicide.” The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology offered refuge to affected students.
The ruling has brought temporary relief but ongoing anxiety. Leo Gerden, a Swedish economics student, called it a “great first step” but warned of a prolonged legal battle, potentially reaching the U.S. Supreme Court, where outcomes are less predictable. Harvard’s sports teams, including rowing and squash, which rely heavily on international talent, also faced disruption.
Broader Context and Legal Battles
The ban is part of Trump’s escalating campaign against elite universities, accusing them of antisemitism, anti-Americanism, and DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) policies. Harvard has faced additional penalties, including a $2.65 billion freeze in federal grants and threats to its tax-exempt status. A separate lawsuit, also before Burroughs, challenges these funding cuts, with arguments scheduled for July 21. Harvard’s legal team, now including Jenner & Block and former acting Solicitor General Ian Gershengorn, signals readiness for a Supreme Court fight.
Critics, including the Harvard Crimson’s editorial board, called the ban a “political vendetta,” with international students as “collateral damage.” The Chinese government warned it would harm U.S. global standing. Posts on X, such as @MarioNawfal’s, celebrated the ruling as a check on Trump’s authority, while @RealAlexJones framed it as Harvard admitting its reliance on foreign students.
Implications and Next Steps
The injunction ensures Harvard’s international students can stay for now, but the case’s resolution remains uncertain. A Supreme Court appeal could test the administration’s immigration powers against academic autonomy. Harvard’s $53 billion endowment provides resources to fight, but the loss of international tuition—often over $100,000 annually per student—threatens its financial model.
For students and faculty, the focus is on stability as commencement nears. Harvard has vowed to protect its “core, legally-protected principles,” while the administration’s push for a 15% cap on foreign students looms. For updates, check Reuters, The New York Times, or Harvard’s official statements at harvard.edu.