Why Harvard has a strong chance to prevail over Trump in immigration lawsuit challenging student visa rules
Why Harvard has a strong chance to prevail over Trump in student visa lawsuit
Harvard University is engaged in a high-profile legal battle with the Trump administration over its ability to enroll international students, a dispute that has significant implications for US higher education.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) revoked Harvard's Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) certification, effectively barring the university from admitting international students. This drastic move came after Harvard refused to comply with federal demands to relinquish control over its admissions, hiring, and governance policies. However, Harvard responded by filing a lawsuit challenging the revocation, and a US District Court granted a temporary restraining order, blocking DHS's decision for now.
The case revolves around the Trump administration's broader efforts to tighten immigration controls on foreign students, including plans to eliminate Optional Practical Training (OPT) and STEM OPT programs that allow graduates to work in the US. Harvard, which has about 25% of its student body consisting of international students, argues that DHS's actions are retaliatory and violate federal regulations designed to ensure due process.
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
[Click Here] - 2025 Top Trending Search - Local network access
Esseps
Learn More
Undo
Legal experts and Harvard's complaint point to significant procedural missteps by DHS, giving the university a strong chance to succeed in court.
Procedural errors and lack of due process in DHS action
At the heart of Harvard's lawsuit is the claim that DHS did not follow its own rules when revoking the university's SEVP certification. According to the complaint, the department failed to issue a Notice of Intent to Withdraw (NOIW) or provide the opportunity for appeal as required under 8 C.F.R.
§ 214.4(b). Harvard's legal team notes that the regulations only allow DHS to terminate a school's certification through formal withdrawal proceedings or if the school voluntarily withdraws, neither of which occurred in this case.
Harvard produced thousands of records in response to DHS's demands, including detailed information on international students' academic status and disciplinary actions. However, DHS deemed Harvard's response insufficient without citing any specific violations or regulations, as reported by the Forbes.
The department's May 22 letter also demanded far-reaching data, such as all audio or video footage of protests involving international students on campus over the past five years — a request that exceeds the scope of typical recordkeeping requirements.
Jonathan Grode, a legal expert quoted by the Forbes, said the complaint 'is well organized, filed swiftly and lists ten compelling counts in seeking relief.' He added that the administration's failure to follow proper procedure is likely the strongest basis for the court to side with Harvard.
Impact on academic freedom and US competitiveness
Harvard's fight goes beyond the university itself and raises concerns about the future of academic freedom and the US's ability to attract top international talent. The Wall Street Journal editorial, as reported by the Forbes, described the government's action as a 'short-sighted attack on one of America's great competitive strengths: its ability to attract the world's best and brightest.'
The loss of SEVP certification would affect thousands of current and prospective international students, disrupting their education and careers.
Former Cornell Law Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr, quoted by the Forbes, warned that while Trump's administration may lose this legal battle, it could still succeed in discouraging international students from applying to US universities. The combination of lawsuits, threats to OPT programs, and visa uncertainties has already caused anxiety among more than 1,000 international students at Harvard and beyond.
In sum, Harvard's lawsuit challenges not only the legality of the Trump administration's immigration policies but also their broader consequences for US higher education. Given the procedural flaws and the high stakes involved, Harvard appears to have a strong chance to prevail and protect the rights of international students in the US.
Ready to empower your child for the AI era? Join our program now! Hurry, only a few seats left.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Trump at PA rally: 'No President has ever fought for American steelworkers like I have'
During Friday's rally in West Mifflin, Pennsylvania, President Trump spoke about his record of support for American steelworkers. Trump also invited steelworkers to the stage during rally to celebrate US steel deal. Show more Show less
India Gazette
an hour ago
- India Gazette
"Trump has put India and Pakistan in same basket": Congress leader Shama Mohamed
New Delhi [India], June 1 (ANI) : Congress leader Shama Mohamed on Sunday sharply criticized former US President Donald Trump for allegedly equating India and Pakistan in the context of terrorism. Mohamed accused Trump of placing both countries 'in the same basket,' despite Pakistan's role as a perpetrator of terrorism and India being its victim. The Congress leader's remarks were made amidst India sending out all-party delegations to various countries as part of its diplomatic outreach against Pakistan after the Pahalgam terror attack and Operation Sindoor. Speaking to ANI, Mohamed said, 'Trump has repeatedly said... 11 times has brought in the ceasefire. The Trump administration clearly said that we have imposed a trade embargo on Pakistan and India to get the ceasefire. Trump has put India and Pakistan in the same basket. They are the perpetrators of terrorism, while we are their victims. After 26/11, the whole world was with us, now who is with us? Why is Pakistan getting deals and MoUs?... Why is everybody with Pakistan and not with India?...' Trump has repeatedly claimed the US brokered the ceasefire and on Friday said that he had told India and Pakistan that the US can't trade with nations that shoot at each other. India has categorically denied any links between trade and tariffs and the recent ceasefire discussion with Pakistan. It also denied US role in the ceasefire understanding. On Saturday, Congress leader Pawan Khera sought clarification from Prime Minister Narendra Modi over US President Donald Trump's recent statement, in which he claimed that trade diplomacy helped de-escalate tensions between India and Pakistan after the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack. 'Prime Minister Modi is going around the country, doing a fancy dress competition. He hasn't brought up Donald Trump even once,' Khera told ANI. He insisted that only the Prime Minister could provide clarity on the matter, saying, 'Now, only our Prime Minister can respond for Donald Trump, you and I certainly cannot. What is this pressure to respond, what is this fear about?' He added, 'We are repeatedly asking: Did you make a deal over Sindoor (Operation Sindoor) out of fear of losing trade? That has been our question from day one.' US President Donald Trump on Friday (local time) had again claimed credit for brokering a cessation of hostilities between India and Pakistan, asserting that his administration's trade negotiations potentially averted a nuclear war between the two nations. During an interaction with reporters, Trump expressed pride in achieving peace through trade rather than military conflict, reigniting debates over the US role in the recent India-Pakistan ceasefire following the escalation of tension after the Pahalgam Terror Attack and India's subsequent reply through Operation Sindoor. The cessation of hostilities between the two nations came on May 10 after India's 'Operation Sindoor', launched in retaliation for the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack that killed 26 tourists, including a Nepali national. The operation targeted nine terror camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), leading to intense clashes, including Pakistan's attempted drone attacks on Indian cities along the International Border and Line of Control (LoC) and shelling along the LoC. Before India could officially announce any understanding of cessation of hostilities with Pakistan, US President Donald Trump announced the 'full and immediate ceasefire', claiming that the US played a key role as mediator. However, India refuted the claims made by the US President, reiterating its policy that India and Pakistan bilaterally address any matter related to the Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir. The MEA further stated that the 'issue of trade' did not come up between Indian and US leaders since the commencement of 'Operation Sindoor' and the cessation of hostilities.' 'From the time Operation Sindoor commenced on May 7 till the time of cessation on May 10, there was conversation between India and the US. But the issue of tariffs never came up in these discussions,' External Affairs Ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said on Thursday in his media briefing. (ANI)
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Legacy academic hubs lose ground while new international study destinations rise
The United States is the undisputed leader of global academia, confronting a moment of reckoning. A convergence of volatile visa policies, tightening immigration laws, and surging costs has cast doubt over its long-standing appeal among international students. Recent moves, most notably the Trump administration's attempt to revoke Harvard University's certification to host foreign students, have left many questioning the future of the US as a reliable academic host. Although judicial intervention has temporarily blocked the decision, the uncertainty alone could reshape the global flow of student talent. The decline of traditional study destinations According to US State Department data, a record 1.12 million international students contribute over $50 billion annually to the American economy. Yet this financial magnetism may be faltering. Harvard and other leading research institutions have suffered multibillion-dollar cuts in research funding, diminishing their appeal for postgraduate scholars. Rising tuition, exceeding $100,000 at some institutions, only sharpens concerns about value and return on investment. Meanwhile, other Anglophone countries are implementing immigration and education reforms that dampen their once-robust international enrollment figures. In the UK, the government is considering shortening the post-study work visa from two years to 18 months, per the UK Council for International Student Affairs. Furthermore, restrictions introduced in 2024 now bar most graduate students from bringing dependents, according to the Times Higher Education. Canada, long celebrated for its inclusivity, has instituted a two-year cap on international student numbers. ICEF Monitor reports that foreign students previously comprised 2.5% of the national population. Australia has similarly imposed limits on international enrollments, increased visa application fees, and tightened regulatory oversight, decisions driven more by domestic political pressure than educational strategy, according to Reuters. Emergence of new academic frontiers As legacy destinations recalibrate or retreat, a constellation of emerging education hubs is stepping into the void. These countries, many grappling with demographic decline, are actively courting international students to sustain their university systems and replenish future labor forces. Japan, where the population of 18-year-olds has nearly halved over the past three decades, according to The Hechinger Report, aims to attract 400,000 international students by 2033. South Korea, where one in five residents is now over 65, as quoted by CNN, is targeting 300,000 by 2027. Singapore has eased permanent residency pathways for foreign graduates, while Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Malaysia are also positioning themselves as globally relevant education centers. India, traditionally an exporter of international students, has entered the arena with ambitions to welcome 500,000 foreign students by 2047, capitalizing on its expanding education infrastructure and English-medium instruction. Several European nations are also entering this race. Germany and Spain recently reached record highs in international student enrollment. While many of these countries offer fewer English-taught programs, their affordability is compelling. Annual tuition in Japan, for instance, averages around $4,000, a fraction of US costs. Strategic shifts and institutional adaptation In response to tightening visa rules, even US universities have begun pivoting. Many are launching international branch campuses, enabling global engagement without immigration bottlenecks. Simultaneously, institutions elsewhere are seizing the moment. The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology recently pledged to accommodate displaced Harvard admits, offering streamlined admission and academic support to affected students. "The university will provide unconditional offers, streamlined admission procedures, and academic support to facilitate a seamless transition for interested students," the institution stated on its website. A decentralized future of global education The tectonic shifts in global education are forging a less centralized and more competitive academic environment. Traditional powerhouses like the US, UK, and Australia still wield influence, but they no longer hold a monopoly. In an era marked by geopolitical volatility and demographic transformation, students are weighing not only prestige but also policy predictability, financial sustainability, and post-study opportunity. The result is a global recalibration where newer, more agile nations are rising, offering education not just as a service, but as a strategic national investment. Ready to empower your child for the AI era? Join our program now! Hurry, only a few seats left.
