Latest news with #HarvardLaw
ABC News
16 hours ago
- Politics
- ABC News
Judge issues injunction over Trump plan to limit Harvard enrolments
A US judge has issued an injunction blocking the Trump administration from revoking Harvard University's ability to enrol international students. The ruling is the latest twist in the US president's pressure campaign against Harvard, which has included him ordering the withdrawal of billions of US dollars in federal funding. The temporary injunction came as lawyers for the federal government backed away from plans to immediately revoke the Ivy League university's ability to enrol international students for at least a month. Instead, the administration will give the college 30 days to contest its plans through a lengthier administrative process. The US Department of Homeland Security sent Harvard a notice of intent on Wednesday to withdraw the school's certification under a federal program to enrol non-US students. Citing the potential for Harvard and its students to be harmed if the administration reverted to its earlier plans, US District Judge Allison Burroughs at that hearing said she planned to issue a broad preliminary injunction preserving the status quo while the newly announced administrative process plays out. Harvard's lawyers have argued that the revocation violated its free speech and due process rights under the US Constitution. In addition, Harvard contended that the revocation failed to comply with Department of Homeland Security regulations. The regulations required providing at least 30 days to challenge the agency's allegations and giving Harvard an opportunity to pursue an administrative appeal. Harvard has said losing the right to enrol international students would affect about one quarter of its student body and devastate the school. It has denied Trump administration charges of alleged bias against conservatives, fostering antisemitism on campus and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party. The Homeland Security Department said it sent Harvard the notice after school officials indicated an intent to comply with requirements of the federal Student and Exchange Visitor Program, which allows Harvard to enrol non-U.S. students. "We continue to reject Harvard's repeated pattern of endangering its students and spreading American hate — it must change its ways to be eligible to receive generous benefits from the American people," Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said in a statement. The university, the nation's oldest and wealthiest, enrolled nearly 6,800 international students in its current school year, about 27 per cent of its total enrolment. The department's move would prevent Harvard from enrolling new international students and require existing ones to transfer to other schools or lose their legal status.
Reuters
16 hours ago
- Business
- Reuters
This Harvard Law degree program could get decimated by foreign student ban
May 29 (Reuters) - The Trump administration's bid to block international students from enrolling at Harvard University could potentially deal a death blow to the law school's influential masters of law program, if courts allow the ban to move ahead. That program, established in 1923 and commonly referred to as the LL.M., brings about 180 lawyers to Harvard Law School annually for a year to learn about the U.S. legal system, study specific areas of the law, or pursue careers in the legal academy. The vast majority — 97% this year — come from outside the U.S., and its graduates have gone on to serve in foreign governments, courts and other key positions around the world. Those LL.M. students would be shut out entirely under Trump's international student ban. Tuition for the LL.M. program at Harvard is set at $80,760 next year, according to the school's website. With about 52% of LL.M. students receiving some need-based grants, the program likely generates about $11 million in tuition revenue. The ban on foreign students would also impact Harvard Law's Juris Doctor and Doctor of Juridical Science programs. Each J.D. class of 560 typically includes 45 to 50 international students — about 9% — for a total of about 150 students spread across three classes. The S.J.D., which is for aspiring legal academics and typically has about 60 people enrolled, also draws heavily from overseas. Harvard data shows that international students made up 17% of all students across its three law degree programs this year, accounting for 349 of 2,009 total students. Those international law students likely paid more than $20 million collectively in tuition after accounting for financial aid grants, a Reuters analysis of publicly available data found. Spokespeople for both Harvard University and its law school declined to comment on the potential impact of the international student ban on Harvard Law, but the university in a statement last week called it an 'unlawful" and "retaliatory action" that threatens its academic research mission. The top administrator of the law school's international legal studies program did not respond to a request for comment on what a ban would mean for the LL.M. program. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem ordered the foreign student ban at Harvard after accusing the university of "fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party." The move escalated the Trump administration's campaign against the Ivy League university, following several rounds of federal funding cuts. Harvard sued and a federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from revoking the university's ability to enroll foreign students. The Trump administration on Thursday backed away from plans to immediately revoke Harvard University's ability to enroll international students and said it would instead give it 30 days to contest those plans through a lengthier administrative process. The judge hearing the case said on Thursday that she planned to issue a broad preliminary injunction preserving the status quo while the newly announced administrative process plays out. Most of the top-ranked law schools in the U.S. offer LL.M. programs, which are typically revenue generators, in part because LL.M. students often take classes already offered through the J.D. program, which is the degree most common among U.S. lawyers. Harvard's LL.M. has a notable track record of turning out influential lawyers who serve across the globe. A 2024 Harvard Crimson article, opens new tab noted that more than 25 of the program's alumni were sitting on the highest courts in 18 countries. It's unclear how much of Harvard University's $6.5 billion in annual revenue is allocated to its law school — the university's 2024 financial report does not break out individual program budgets — but $1.4 billion of that came from tuition and other student costs. The report shows that tuition accounts for 43% of the law school's operating revenue, and that the university's endowment was $53.2 billion in 2024. A law school in Harvard's situation would likely seek to "triage in the short-term" to cover the loss of tuition revenue, through a combination of cutting expenses and seeking support from its parent university, said Chris Chapman, president of AccessLex Institute, which advocates for affordable legal education. Read more: Trump administration blocks Harvard from enrolling foreign students, threatens broader crackdown Judge temporarily blocks Trump admin from revoking Harvard enrollment of foreign students
The Guardian
17 hours ago
- General
- The Guardian
Judge extends order blocking Trump officials from revoking Harvard's ability to enroll international students
A US federal judge will issue an injunction blocking the Trump administration's efforts to prevent Harvard University from enrolling international students, Reuters reported on Thursday. The university was in court seeking to extend a temporary order blocking the Trump administration from revoking the school's right to host international students. The judge, Allison Burroughs, had issued an emergency block last week after the administration abruptly announced it would cancel Harvard's ability to host international students – the latest and most severe escalation in the administration's battle against higher education institutions. As graduation ceremonies were under way on campus, lawyers for the university argued in federal court in Boston that the revocation announced by the government last week violates the US constitution's free speech and due process rights as well as procedural law regulating government actions. In a packed court room with several international students in attendance, Burroughs said she wanted to 'maintain the status quo' while the case makes its way through the courts. In court documents filed on Wednesday, the director of immigration services at the university's international office said that the administration's announcement has caused 'profound fear, concern, and confusion' among faculty and students. 'Many international students and scholars are reporting significant emotional distress that is affecting their mental health and making it difficult to focus on their studies,' she wrote. 'Some are afraid to attend their own graduation ceremonies this week out of fear that some immigration-related action will be taken against them.' On Thursday, shortly before the hearing, the Department of Homeland Security formally notified Harvard that it would withdraw the university's certification under the federal Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), the system that allows universities to enroll non-US students. But the move, which gave the university 30 days to contest the revocation through an administrative process, indicated it was backtracking from the immediate revocation the administration announced last week. In a statement, the department's head, Kristi Noem, doubled down on her allegations against Harvard, which she has accused of 'pro-terrorist conduct', 'encouraging and allowing antisemitic and anti-American violence' and of 'coordinating with Chinese Communist Party officials on training that undermined American national security'. 'Harvard's refusal to comply with SEVP oversight was the latest evidence that it disdains the American people and takes for granted U.S. taxpayer benefits,' Noem added. If allowed to stand, the administration's action against Harvard would affect a quarter of the university's population: approximately 5,000 current students, as well as 2,000 recent graduates enrolled in optional practical training, a post-graduation work programme. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion Harvard maintains that the administration's decision is retaliation for the university's refusal to abide by a series of overly broad demands made by the Trump administration that would severely undermine the university's independence. The administration had demanded Harvard turn over information about its international students, including discipline records as well as student's addresses, contact information and details about their coursework. It announced the revocations after it said the university failed to comply. In April, the university became the first to sue the administration over billions in cuts to federally funded research – setting off a showdown with the White House, which earlier this week announced it would cancel all remaining government contracts with the university. In total, the administration has cut or frozen about $3bn in federal grants and contracts with Harvard. Those cuts have already upended crucial medical and scientific research initiatives, but the latest attack on international students had spread panic among thousands of current and incoming international students – with many seeking last minute transfers to other universities, canceling summer travel plans for fear of not being able to return, or reconsidering plans to study in the US altogether. Some foreign universities have also seized on the crisis, looking to recruit Harvard students away from the US. 'International students and scholars are tremendous assets that contribute to US preeminence in innovation, research, and economic strength,' said Fanta Aw, executive director and CEO of Nafsa, the Association of International Educators. 'Undermining their ability to study here is self-defeating. With these actions, the United States will alienate the very minds that fuel its success.'
Boston Globe
a day ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
‘It seems like science fiction.' Harvard students set to graduate amid fear, uncertainty of Trump's pressure campaign
'It seems like science fiction, or a horror movie,' said Julie Shields, mother of a Harvard Law graduate, walking out of the Harvard Coop on Tuesday. 'It proves that what happens somewhere else — it can happen here.' Advertisement Shields, an attorney originally from New York, said it had been 'frightening' to see the pressure campaign unfold against one of the most prestigious and respected institutions in the country — even more so knowing that it could affect her daughter's education and career. 'The First Amendment, freedom of speech, it doesn't seem that it's being respected in the same way it was when I was growing up,' she said, adding that 'Nothing in the world is normal right now. It's all shifting. And for [the graduates], even more so.' Others say the Trump administration's threats have also brought the community together, at least for the time being, in solidarity and defiance. 'It is infuriating, and it's really obvious to anybody who has been following this, that what's going on is vindictive,' said Tony Vitt, a first-year graduate student of Celtic Languages and Literature. 'It is targeted. It's being sold as protection against antisemitism and ideological capture and those kinds of things — [but] all of that is false.' Advertisement The uncertainty felt by so many around Harvard is only heightened for graduating international students, who are weighing whether they can, or should, remain in the country after walking the stage. Kamsai Nawapruek, originally from Thailand, wrapped up her studies at Harvard in November. But she said her job at the MBTA is still predicated on an extension of her F-1 student visa. 'If you can revoke the visa, does that mean that you can revoke my EAD card?' she said, referring to the document that allows her to work in the US. 'I've heard some of my friends got laid off the next very next day [after the crackdown on international student enrollment]. I don't know why or how, but yeah, that was what happened. I'm not affected by the situation yet ... but right now it's just wait and see.' For Mobi Humayun, a naturalized US citizen originally from Pakistan graduating with a masters' in information technology, the crackdown has made him uneasy about the future of the country he now calls home. 'Right now, it feels like they're closing the doors and windows for freedom of speech,' he said. 'If I disagree with you, that doesn't mean I'm breaking the law. Disagreement brings opportunities to make things better.' Beyond the ramifications of curtailing speech on Harvard's campus, Humayun said the threat of research funding cuts would only weaken the university — and the United States. Advertisement 'Universities need funds,' he said. 'If you cut the funding, how are you going to produce those Nobel Prizes? How will America lead?' It's been enough to give students pause about what Harvard's future looks like. 'If I was thinking about doing a PhD here, this information, with everything that's happening — it would make me take a second look," said David Levin, graduating with a masters degree in computer science. Levin, who is Jewish, says he understands the need to address antisemitism on campus. But he said that most faculty members — and international students, he added — are 'not interested in causing any trouble.' 'They just want to be able to do their research in peace.' 'I didn't ask for my professors to lose research funding,' Levin said. 'That's not something that benefits me. So I think Trump is essentially screwing over the people who he said he was going to protect.' The potential cuts to scientific research have also worried alums, such as Elizabeth Adams, 64. 'One thing that might be endangered is an Alzheimer's project, which is making great inroads,' Adams said. 'And that's personal to me, because my mom died of Alzheimer's.' Adams, a retired marketing executive and graduate of the class of 1982, describes herself as a moderate Republican. But Trump's actions against Harvard have all the markings of a personal vendetta, she said. When the Department of Education announced last week it would halt Harvard's ability to enroll international students, she said she immediately made a donation to her alma mater. Peter Connolly, an 80-year-old alum living in Chelsea, felt compelled to revisit the campus Wednesday to pick up a crimson bucket hat. Advertisement 'It sounds like they're trying to basically destroy Harvard,' said Connolly, who took economics courses at Harvard in 1980. 'And higher education in general.' Ryan Doan-Nguyen, a member of Harvard College's class of 2025, stood by the entrance to Harvard Yard on Tuesday having his photograph taken by family members. David L. Ryan/Globe Staff Other students say they're encouraged the university has refused to back down in the face of federal pressure, even with the potential repercussions to its academics and research. 'I'd say Harvard affiliates from all the schools, from undergrad through PhD, have been immensely proud of the stance our institution has taken,' said Ryan Doan-Nguyen, a Worcester native graduating from Harvard College. Some students said the outside attacks have helped bridge some of the deep fractures on campus. Even those critical of the university's handling of antisemitism, Islamophobia, and diversity initiatives are generally supportive of his stance against the Trump administration. 'I think people — even those who might otherwise have disagreements about things like viewpoint diversity or [the university's] administrative policies — are finding more common ground than not, in opposing the overreach that we've seen," said Gareth Cleveland, who's graduating with a master's in education. Doan-Nguyen said that Harvard's resistance has helped bring the student body together. And, he added, it has also impacted him personally; thanks to the ongoing litigation surrounding the school, the history and literature major said he'd been encouraged to explore a career in law. 'I'm very happy to represent Harvard,' Doan-Nguyen said. 'And that's not something we're always proud to say.' Angel Vargas, graduating with a master's in liberal arts in creative writing and literature, said that, as far as universities go, Harvard has 'done a better job than a lot of others.' For someone who served six years as a US Army reservist, Vargas said the Trump administration's efforts to control higher education feel like a betrayal of the values he signed up to protect. Advertisement 'It's a disservice,' he said, 'not just to myself, but to my friends and other service members — what they fought for and had to sacrifice.' But Doan-Nguyen said that, regardless of what the future holds for their university, Harvard graduates are nothing if not resilient. 'We've been walking on eggshells these past four years,' he said. 'So our feet have hardened.' Camilo Fonseca can be reached at
New York Post
4 days ago
- Politics
- New York Post
Courts are infected with ‘injunctivitis' — and tempting Trump's defiance
Federal judges are working overtime to defy President Trump. How much thought have they given to what happens if he defies them in turn? So far, Trump has been obeying the court orders coming from mostly leftist federal district judges, even when those orders are deeply questionable. Advertisement Law professor Jonathan Turley calls it 'injunctivitis,' while Harvard Law's Adrian Vermeule says that district courts' nationwide restraining orders 'are basically an automatic judicial veto on all new policy.' 'Whatever form of government that is, let's please not call it 'democracy,' ' Vermeule notes. A new standing order in Maryland automatically blocks the deportation of any illegal alien whenever their lawyer files a petition — before a judge even reviews it. Advertisement District Judge Allison Burroughs in Massachusetts blocked Trump's funding ban on Harvard almost the moment papers were filed. 'Did she even read it, or was the rubber stamp already loaded?' one observer asked. Clearly, a significant portion of the federal judiciary is hostile to Trump's policies and is happy to thwart them in any way it can. Fifth Circuit Judge James Ho last week denounced his colleagues for acting like short-order cooks for the left. Advertisement 'We should admit that this is special treatment being afforded to certain favored litigants . . . and we should stop pretending that Lady Justice is blindfolded,' Ho wrote. It all raises a question: What if Trump simply ignores these rulings? He wouldn't be the first president to do so. In the famous case of Marbury vs. Madison, President Thomas Jefferson announced in advance that he wouldn't comply with a Supreme Court decision favoring Marbury — leading to some fancy legal footwork by Chief Justice John Marshall, who wrote an opinion that carefully avoided forcing Jefferson's hand. Advertisement President Andrew Jackson ignored the Supreme Court's decision in favor of the Cherokee tribe in Worcester vs. Georgia, reportedly remarking 'John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.' Abraham Lincoln essentially disregarded the court's Dred Scott ruling, arguing that an unelected body couldn't legitimately make policy for an entire nation based on a single case. As he observed in his first inaugural address, 'if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.' One can only imagine what Honest Abe would have said about district court judges. Get opinions and commentary from our columnists Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter! Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters President Franklin D. Roosevelt, like Jefferson before him, announced in advance of the Supreme Court's ruling in a 1942 case involving Nazi saboteurs that he would not obey an order in their favor. But in recent decades, presidential defiance of a Supreme Court opinion has become almost unthinkable. The high court's prestige has been far greater than it was earlier in US history, and no president has enjoyed the political whip hand held by FDR. Advertisement The press, too, has generally been very supportive of the Supreme Court — especially when Republicans hold the presidency. But what about now? The judiciary's prestige has been badly damaged, in part because of Democrats' attacks after rulings on abortion, affirmative action and gun control went against their preferences. Advertisement And the power of the press has much declined: Despite the legacy media's unrelenting anti-Trump negativity, the number of Americans who think the country is 'on the right track' is at a near-record high, according to RealClearPolitics. If the media can't move that needle, how much can it hurt Trump over a disputed legal question — especially when large majorities of the public support the president on spending cuts and deportations, the issues drawing the fiercest judicial opposition? In the past, defying the courts would have looked like an abandonment of the rule of law. But given the courts' behavior, that's not the argument it used to be. Leftists have spent the past several decades attacking and breaking down institutions. Now that they need the public to venerate those institutions, they don't have much to work with. Advertisement Will the Supreme Court impose some order on the lower courts — or will we find out how far a president can go in ignoring the judiciary? And if it's the latter, is that so bad? The Framers set up a system of separated branches in which, as Lincoln noted, power and responsibility were compartmentalized. Advertisement The judiciary's claim to be the final authority on all constitutional questions is comparatively new, and poorly founded. As Vermeule says, such a system isn't anything like democracy — and is nothing like what the Framers envisioned. Previously, the balance worked because the judiciary had self-control and understood the dangers of overreach. Now, like so many of our institutions, it's been addled and corrupted by Trump-hatred — and one way or another, a corrective is in order. Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a professor of law at the University of Tennessee and founder of the blog.
