Visas of Central Michigan University international students terminated by federal officials, school says
Visas of several current and former international students at Central Michigan University have been "terminated" by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the school said.
According to a letter sent by the university, staff members learned of the students' records being terminated by federal officials during routine reviews of the
Student and Exchange Visitor Information System
(SEVIS).
The school says neither it nor the impacted students were notified of the revocations.
"CMU does not have the ability to reverse the government's decision to terminate a student's visa status, nor can the university's Office of General Counsel provide legal guidance or services to individual students, faculty, and staff," the letter says.
According to the
school's policy
, the Office of International Student and Scholar Services is running daily checks on international student records and will "immediately" reach out to any person whose status has changed.
As of Saturday afternoon, there have been no reports of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or Customs and Border Protection officers on campus, according to the school.
The school says it has designated certain spaces on campus, including residence hall rooms and faculty offices, where ICE agents need a judicial warrant to enter. Immigration officers, however, do not need a warrant to enter public spaces.
University President Neil MacKinnon and Provost Paula Lancaster signed the letter.
The Trump administration's recent crackdown on some students with visas and green cards
has raised questions about First Amendment rights
, however, Secretary of State Marco Rubio last month
cited
a provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act that authorizes the nation's top diplomat to
revoke the visas
of foreign national students because their presence or activities have "potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences" for the U.S.
The letter from CMU concluded with, "To our international students, faculty, and staff: You are welcome here, and we are glad to have you as members of our community. In uncertain times, we rely on our friends, colleagues, and neighbors to help us weather challenges. Thank you in advance for offering compassion and kindness to our students and to each other as we navigate these changes."
CBS News Detroit has reached out to Wayne State University, University of Michigan and Michigan State University to determine whether similar incidents occurred at their institutions but has not heard back.
The above video first aired on April 2, 2025.
Aaron Navarro
and
Caitlin Yilek
contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Harvard can't truly win its fight against Trump
Imagine a boxing match in which one fighter can block the blows of his opponent but isn't permitted to hit back. When struck by a low blow, the injured fighter may appeal, but the referee can only admonish the unscrupulous fighter to abide by the rules. He is not allowed to end the match by throwing in the towel — and his opponent is free to keep punching. This is the situation in which Harvard now finds itself. The Trump administration has accused Harvard University of tolerating antisemitism and implementing diversity, equity and inclusion policies that violate civil rights laws. On those tenuous grounds, the federal government has frozen or terminated billions in research funding, launched at least eight highly intrusive investigations, threatened to revoke the university's tax-exempt status and tried to end its ability to enroll international students. If a private actor illegally crippled Harvard's ability to operate, the university could ask a court to order the defendant to desist, award the institution attorneys' fees and costs and mandate monetary compensation for the harms it suffered. But the federal government has sovereign immunity, largely protecting it from suits and monetary damages. Harvard has already sued the government twice. The first lawsuit, filed in April, accuses the Trump administration of withholding billions in federal funding 'as leverage to gain control of academic decision making' in flagrant violation of the First Amendment and the procedural safeguards of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The second lawsuit, filed in May, challenges the government's revocation of Harvard's right to enroll international students 'without process or cause, to immediate and devastating effect for Harvard and more than 7,000 visa holders,' as another 'blatant violation of the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act.' In both suits, Harvard seeks injunctions vacating the government's orders and reimbursement of its legal fees and costs. Just hours after Harvard filed its second lawsuit, the judge issued a temporary restraining order barring implementation of the edict prohibiting Harvard from enrolling international students. But neither lawsuit seeks — or can request — monetary compensation for the extraordinary harm Harvard is suffering at the government's hands. Harvard's research programs have been thrown into disarray, its reputation tarnished and, it argues, 'its ability to recruit and retain talent, secure future funding, and maintain its relationships with other institutions' significantly diminished. Harvard has been forced to allocate at least $250 million to salvage some of the research jeopardized by the government's funding freeze. The school has already spent huge amounts of time, energy and money responding to the government's many investigations and sweeping demands for information. And the fight is only in its early rounds. Although the Constitution does not explicitly address sovereign immunity, courts have held from the earliest days of the republic that the government cannot be sued without its consent. This principle is drawn from English common law, which assumed that 'the King can do no wrong.' As legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky has observed, the effect of sovereign immunity is 'to ensure that some individuals who have suffered egregious harms will be unable to receive redress for their injuries.' Congress can waive the government's immunity from suit through laws such as the Administrative Procedure Act, which underpins most of Harvard's claims against the government. But while that law allows courts to declare certain government actions illegal and issue injunctive relief, it does not permit the award of monetary damages. The Federal Tort Claims Act allows plaintiffs to seek damages for certain negligent or wrongful acts by government officials, such as a car crash or sexual assault. But its waiver doesn't extend to acts involving the performance of 'a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be abused.' The law is thus rendered useless to parties injured by government edicts or policies, however damaging or illegal. As the Supreme Court has noted, protecting the government from monetary damages for policy judgments 'prevents judicial 'second-guessing' of legislative and administrative decisions.' Sovereign immunity also reduces the risk that liability concerns will prevent government officials from taking sound but potentially costly actions. But monetary damages serve two important legal functions: they help compensate victims for their injuries, and, by leveling the playing field, they deter government officials from committing wrongful acts. Without the ability to obtain monetary compensation, Harvard can deflect some of the government's attacks through court orders, but it cannot be made whole for the harm done to its finances, its reputation and members of the campus community. Worse still, there is nothing to deter the government from continuing its assault. And some actions will be difficult to challenge in court, such as the government's threat to exclude Harvard from future research grants, and its recent decision to pause all international student visa interviews, an action that will harm hundreds of colleges and universities, including Harvard. And under legislation working its way through Congress, the school may end up paying roughly $850 million annually in endowment excise taxes. As much as some critics of Harvard may revel in watching America's oldest, richest and most influential university humbled, the country benefits enormously from an institution that has trained eight American presidents, produced 161 Nobel laureates and made countless life-changing discoveries in medicine, science and technology, earning 155 patents last year alone. Harvard's experience demonstrates how much the rule of law depends on those in power exercising that power with restraint and in the public interest. Harvard cannot win this fight. It is rigged. But that doesn't mean the university should not stay in the ring, litigate, mobilize its alumni, donors and friends, and enlist the support of other colleges and universities, hoping to remain standing long enough for a new Congress and administration to stop the carnage. And, to that end, to make sure voters understand that when government officials are hell bent on punishing their political enemies (real and imagined) regardless of how large the collateral damage, just about every American loses. Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Emeritus Professor of American Studies at Cornell University. David Wippman is emeritus president of Hamilton College.
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
Americans are divided over religious freedom. The Supreme Court? Not as much
Thursday was a surprising day at the Supreme Court, and a religion case was part of the action. The justices released six unanimous or near-unanimous decisions, including in a closely watched battle over the scope of faith-based tax breaks. In that religion case, the full court agreed that Wisconsin officials were unlawfully privileging certain religious nonprofits over others by basing access to religious exemptions on how they expressed their beliefs. Organizations that served only members of their own religion or that openly evangelized were typically eligible for the tax break, while organizations that served all comers with no strings attached often were deemed not religious enough to qualify. 'It is fundamental to our constitutional order that the government maintain 'neutrality between religion and religion.' There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one,' Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the Supreme Court's opinion, which reversed a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling against a group of Catholic nonprofits. The decision is significant, since it could lead to changes to religious exemptions nationwide. But the fact that it was unanimous isn't as surprising as it may, at first, have appeared. If there's a case to be made that the Supreme Court's ruling was unexpected, it centers on the role religious freedom advocates played in the battle. Faith-related groups did not speak with one voice on how the justices should interpret the First Amendment. They put together competing legal briefs and press releases. More liberal organizations and individuals supported Wisconsin's narrow religious exemption, arguing that an overly broad tax break would harm workers, including people of faith. More conservative groups, on the other hand, said religious freedom law requires broad exemptions, which enable faith-based organizations to operate according to their beliefs. While these arguments were specific to the Supreme Court case on Catholic nonprofits, they should be familiar to anyone who follows faith-related policy debates. Religious groups and faith-related advocacy organizations no longer agree on what religious freedom means — nor on whether or not conservative Christians, in particular, are demanding too many concessions in the public square. Those disagreements help explain why different religious freedom advocates held very different views on President Donald Trump and Kamala Harris during last year's election, as the Deseret News previously reported, and why some faith groups support a push to limit the application of a landmark religious freedom law. More liberal advocates generally believe religious liberty protections work best when they're balanced with other types of protections, including LGBTQ nondiscrimination laws, while more conservative advocates generally say religious freedom should win out. If you dig into the justices' track record on religion over the 20 years Chief Justice John Roberts has led the court, you'll find several rulings that reflect this tension. Among other issues, the court has split along ideological lines in cases involving school prayer, state funding for religious schools and the Affordable Care Act's birth control mandate. In these decisions and others, the court's conservative majority embraced a broad interpretation of religious exercise protections, while the court's more liberal justices called for limitations on religious freedom in their dissents. These split decisions are often what people think of when they think of the Supreme Court and religion — but they're actually the exception, not the rule. From Roberts' confirmation in September 2005 to April 2021, religious freedom claims succeeded in front of the Supreme Court 13 times. Nine of those 13 rulings were either unanimous or from a mixed 7-2 majority, according to a Deseret News analysis from 2021. In the four years since that analysis was released, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of religion claims in merits cases seven more times. Four of the decisions were unanimous, while a fifth was 8-1. In other words, the justices are finding ways to bridge the gap between conservative and liberal takes on religious freedom, including in cases involving LGBTQ rights. When you consider the court's record on religion, Thursday's unanimous ruling no longer seems surprising. But it might still feel worth celebrating, especially if you're worried about the state of the religious freedom landscape. Before the Supreme Court enters its summer recess in early July, the justices will have one more opportunity to model consensus-building in a religious freedom case. In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the court is considering whether the First Amendment gives religious parents a right to opt their kids out of reading or hearing books about LGBTQ issues. During oral arguments in April, the court appeared divided along ideological lines, as the Deseret News reported at the time. More liberal justices seemed to support the school district, which said that religious freedom protects you from being coerced into changing your beliefs, not from being exposed to other ideas. More conservative justices seemed to support the families, who felt like their religious teachings were being drowned out. It wasn't immediately clear what a compromise ruling would look like. But even as Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked tough questions of the school district's attorney, he reminded everyone to keep searching. 'The whole goal, I think, of some of our religion precedents is to look for the win/win,' he said.
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
Bill limiting protests at public universities awaits Gov. Abbott's approval
The Brief A new bill, SB 2972, limiting protests on Texas public university campuses has passed both the Senate and House. The bill prohibits activities like using amplified sound during class, protesting in the last two weeks of the semester, and wearing masks to conceal identity. Critics, including the ACLU of Texas, argue the bill violates First Amendment rights. AUSTIN - A bill that passed through the Texas legislature last weekend would prohibit certain times and locations of protests on public university campuses. Critics worry the bill is in direct violation of the First Amendment, as well as the Texas Constitution. Senate Bill 2972 defines "expressive activities" in the same manner as the First Amendment and the Texas Constitution, directly citing those documents to include assemblies, protests, speeches, the distribution of written materials, the carrying of signs, and the circulation of petitions. Under the new bill, the following would be prohibited at Texas universities: Using devices to amplify sound during class hours while engaging in expressive activities. Engaging in expressive activities during the last two weeks of the semester. Camping or setting up tents on campus. Wearing a mask or other disguise while engaging in expressive activities. Lowering the U.S. flag with the intent to raise another flag. Engaging in expressive activities between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. Note that these are limited and expanded upon individually within the bill's text. The Senate passed the bill 21-10 on May 14. The House passed it 97-39 on May 28. What they're saying The bill's text says it may not be construed to limit freedom of speech or expression as protected by the First Amendment or Texas Constitution. Critics wonder how this is possible, saying the bill in its entirety is an imposition of prohibitions on rights defined in those texts. Caro Achar, the engagement coordinator for free speech at the ACLU of Texas, released the following statement to that point. "S.B. 2972 threatens the free expression of all Texans, regardless of political beliefs. This bill imposes broad restrictions that allow school officials to restrict how, when, and where Texans can speak on campus — undermining the First Amendment rights of students, faculty, staff, and the general public." Dig deeper The new bill comes on the heels of recent major protests on Texas university campuses, largely related to the conflict between Israel and Palestine, as well as developments with mass deportations. At one UT Austin protest in April 2024, 79 pro-Palestine protesters were taken into custody. The university was later found to have violated several institutional rules when handling the incident. Feds to screen social media of migrants, foreign students for antisemitic activity Columbia must notify students before handing records to Congress amid antisemitism probe ICE detains U of M student at Twin Cities campus, officials say What's next SB 2972 now awaits Gov. Greg Abbott's signature. According to the ACLU, he is expected to sign it into law. If he neither signs nor vetoes the bill, it will become law without his action. The Source Information in this article comes from Texas Legislature Online, the ACLU of Texas and previous coverage by FOX 7.
