Latest news with #HarvardLawSchool
Straits Times
5 days ago
- Business
- Straits Times
US judge extends order blocking Trump administration ban on foreign students at Harvard
Harvard Law School graduates cheer during the 374th Harvard Commencement in Harvard Yard in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on May 29. PHOTO: AFP BOSTON - A federal judge said on May 29 she would extend an order blocking President Donald Trump's administration from immediately revoking Harvard University's ability to enrol international students, a victory for the Ivy League school that is entangled in multiple battles with the administration. US District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston announced her intention to issue a preliminary injunction, six days after she first granted Harvard a temporary order blocking the Trump administration's move. As the court hearing unfolded on May 29 morning, thousands of Harvard students were receiving their degrees at the school's commencement ceremony on campus about 8 km away. University President Alan Garber, who received a standing ovation, welcomed graduating students 'from down the street, across the country and around the world', drawing applause for the last words. 'Around the world - just as it should be,' he added. The Trump administration has launched a multifront attack on the nation's oldest and wealthiest university, freezing billions of dollars in grants and other funding, proposing to end its tax-exempt status and opening an investigation into whether it discriminated against white, Asian, male or straight employees or job applicants. Revoking Harvard's ability to enrol international students would be damaging, the school says. More than a quarter of the student body is international; nearly 60 per cent of the graduate students at the prestigious Harvard Kennedy School hail from other countries. The attack on Harvard is part of the administration's broader effort to pressure higher education institutions to align with its policy agenda. On May 28, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the administration would start 'aggressively' revoking visas issued to Chinese students attending US schools, including those with ties to the Chinese Communist Party and those studying in critical fields, which he did not specify. More than 275,000 Chinese students are enrolled in hundreds of US colleges, providing a major source of revenue for the schools and a crucial pipeline of talent for US technology companies. The decision prompted despair and frustration among students who have offers to attend in 2026. Prior to Mr Rubio's announcement, the offensive against US colleges had largely been confined to Ivy League schools such as Harvard, Columbia and the University of Pennsylvania, which it has accused of left-wing bias and antisemitism. Ms Lynn Pasquerella, president of the advocacy group American Association of Colleges and Universities, said the Trump administration's targeting of international students would have negative consequences for schools and the US. 'Chinese students, in particular, now that they're being faced with hyper-scrutiny, are looking elsewhere,' she said. 'That is a huge loss for us. It's a brain drain.' Judge sceptical The court hearing before Judge Burroughs took place shortly after the administration softened its stance in an apparent effort to refute Harvard's legal arguments in advance. Late May 28 night, the US Department of Homeland Security sent a notice to Harvard saying it would now give the university 30 days to submit evidence contesting the administration's plan to revoke Harvard's right to enrol non-US students. The notice signalled a change in course for DHS, which had said last week that the revocation was effective immediately. In its lawsuit challenging the move, Harvard argued that DHS had violated federal administrative procedure. During the court hearing, US Department of Justice attorney Tiberius Davis argued there was now no need for a court order blocking the administration's actions, since Harvard could challenge them via an administrative process. But Judge Burroughs, an appointee of Democratic former President Barack Obama, said she believed a broad preliminary injunction protecting Harvard and students was necessary while that process played out. She expressed scepticism that Harvard's fate would be any different at its conclusion, saying, 'Aren't we still going to end up back here at the same place?' She also questioned whether the administration had fully complied with her temporary restraining order, pointing to a declaration Harvard submitted on May 28 that said visas for incoming students had been recently revoked. Judge Burroughs said the temporary order would remain in effect while lawyers for both sides negotiate over the terms of the injunction. Harvard has called DHS's action part of an 'unprecedented and retaliatory attack on academic freedom'. The school is pursuing a separate lawsuit challenging the administration's decision to terminate nearly US$3 billion (S$3.88 billion) in federal research funding. Harvard argues the Trump administration is retaliating against it for refusing to accede to its demands to control the school's governance, curriculum and the ideology of its faculty and students. In announcing the initial decision to revoke Harvard's certification, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, without providing evidence, accused the university of 'fostering violence, anti-Semitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party'. She accused the school of refusing to comply with wide-ranging requests for information on its student visa holders, including whether they engaged in any activity that was illegal, violent or subjected them to discipline. 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 Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
USA Today
28-05-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Rebels, gangsters and presidents animate biography of radical lawyer Paul O'Dwyer
Rebels, gangsters and presidents animate biography of radical lawyer Paul O'Dwyer 'An Irish Passion for Justice: The Life of Rebel New York Attorney Paul O'Dwyer,' takes readers through the civil rights era, Northern Ireland, and post-war New York's machine politics. Show Caption Hide Caption Harvard Law School's Magna Carta revealed as an original Harvard Law School's Magna Carta revealed as an original, the school bought a 1327 copy of the Magna Carta from legal book dealer for $27.50 in 1946. Robert Polner and Michael Tubridy's biography of Paul O'Dwyer examines the clash between purity and pragmatism in public llife. The book includes cameos from presidents including JFK, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Lyndon Johnson, and Franklin Roosevelt. O'Dwyer spent decades fighting for civil rights and desegregation. His elder brother, New York Mayor William O'Dwyer, was dogged by unproven allegations of gangland ties. In the endless dogfight between purity and pragmatism it's never clear who to bet on. It's even harder to know who to love. Radical Irish-American lawyer Paul O'Dwyer was a passionate purist who spent most of the 20th Century fighting – and often winning – for society's losers. O'Dwyer stood up for Irish Republicans, the early Zionists, Blacks in the segregated South, Blacks in the segregated North, gays and lesbians during the AIDS crisis, Kentucky coal miners and, briefly, the entire population of Iran. His elder brother, William O'Dwyer, was the silver-tongued, machine-backed mayor of post-war New York who traveled by chauffeured car and got things done – until creeping scandal pushed him from office, all the way to Mexico City. The intensely loyal but often difficult relationship between these immigrant siblings is only the most attractive of several threads crackling through Robert Polner and Michael Tubridy's excellent biography, 'An Irish Passion for Justice: The Life of Rebel New York Attorney Paul O'Dwyer' (available now from Three Hills Books). The clash of zealotry and conciliation, the question of how best to do the right thing, animates the O'Dwyer story in ways eerie and often striking. Sometimes tilting at windmills and at others slaying dragons, Paul O'Dwyer keeps popping up where the action is, wavy-haired, brogue-talking, and brave. It's 1967: O'Dwyer is in segregated Alligator, Mississippi, watching the local polls to help out civil rights icon Fannie Lou Hamer. It's 1968 and he's manhandled by Chicago cops while trying to save an anti-Vietnam war delegate from a beating at the riotous Democratic National Convention. There he is, sunburned in San Antonio, springing suspected Irish Republican Army sympathizers from federal lock-up. And here he is in 1993, whispering to Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton during the Democratic presidential primaries that the time might be right for the U.S. to get off the sidelines and broker an end to decades of violence and repression in Northern Ireland. O'Dwyer, the youngest of 10, grew up in an impoverished hamlet in Ireland's County Mayo. After graduating from a Dickensian church-run school and completing a year of college – supported by the meager salaries of his schoolteacher sisters – he was summoned at age 17 to New York by his four brothers, who'd already escaped across the Atlantic. There he met Bill, who'd never laid eyes on the baby of the family. Bill was something: A seminary dropout, he'd worked as a barman, riverboat furnace-tender, and laborer before joining the NYPD and becoming a lawyer. He flashed a gold tooth. Unlike his younger brothers, he didn't send money home. He steered Paul into law school, and encouraged him to rise through the patronage and compromises of Tammany Hall – the city's ruling Democratic machine – though Paul chose more difficult means of ascent. Eldest and youngest formed a bond that would survive decades of friction over principles and tactics. Bill was elected district attorney of Brooklyn, where he prosecuted the button-men of Murder Inc., but he was stalked by allegations – never proven – of gangland ties that would later undo his mayoralty. Where Bill sent men to the electric chair, Paul defended accused killers bound for the death house. The contrast is even more striking when the book describes how their brother Frank O'Dwyer was himself shot dead in a hold-up, and his killer executed. Paul O'Dwyer didn't let zealotry fence off the road to common ground. Fiercely anti-British, he refused to condemn IRA violence, and also refused to condemn attacks on Catholics by Northern Ireland's Protestant paramilitaries, reasoning – despite his Catholic allegiance – that he couldn't pit one group of Irishmen against another. In the 1970s he caught hell for reaching out to the violent anti-Catholic bigot Andrew Tyrie, a man with plenty of blood on his hands, in search of a way to unite the poor of Belfast, Protestant and Catholic, against their shared poverty and unemployment in the British north. O'Dwyer influence and compromise While Bill O'Dwyer became mayor in 1945, the highest office Paul achieved was that of city council president, in 1973. He lost primary or general election races for mayor, Congress and the U.S. Senate. Friends and foes "painted Paul as more influential than he actually was" in his brother's administration, the authors write. In retirement, Bill said his younger brother "had little patience for me because of compromises that I may have made." "That's perhaps the difference between a successful politician and one who had to learn some things yet," he added. In a now-familiar swing of the pendulum, the man who defeated O'Dwyer in the 1968 Democratic primary for senator from liberal New York, in a year of riots and tumult, ultimately lost – not to a Republican, but to the Conservative party candidate. Fifty-six years later, at another moment of upheaval, a majority of New Yorkers pulled the lever for Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election – but Donald Trump still won 30% of the city, the best GOP showing in three decades. As Polner and Tubridy write, O'Dwyer's life is 'relevant to understanding America's and the world's polarization in the twenty-first century.' Sense and sensibility Back to the brothers: Who to love? Bill O'Dwyer took the world as it was, made his deals, and built airports, housing, transit and sewers in America's biggest city. Paul O'Dwyer tried to make the world a better place, catching where he could those who walked life's high-wire without much of a net. He died in 1998, shortly after the Good Friday Agreement ended decades of open conflict in Northern Ireland. As Polner and Tubridy show, to make a go of things – in a story, a city, a republic – you ultimately need both characters, the pragmatist and the purist.
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Supreme Court is putting Venezuelan child killers ahead of the law
President Donald Trump shocked and awed three cartels when he invoked the Alien Enemies Act to expedite the removal of alleged Tren de Aragua criminals: the narco-human traffickers, the deep state, and – sadly – the Supreme Court of the United States. In temporarily blocking the president from proceeding with deportations under the Act, our brave justices should have known better. Not merely because the vicious Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua murders children, seizes property, and terrorises communities in (primarily) Democrat-run jurisdictions. But because the justices, and the judges on the inferior federal courts, are supposed to interpret laws according to their plain, historically-grounded meaning. If words mean something, but the justices surrender to a politicised redefinition, then America ceases to be a nation of laws. Apparently, that's a hard task for Supreme Court justices educated at Harvard Law School and Yale Law School. After decades of intellectual exertion, the late Justice Antonin Scalia might well have thought he had won the fundamental argument for constitutional originalism: that words must mean now what they meant at the time of any given law's enactment. But many judges don't like that. They want words to mean what their elite friends say they mean. That's perhaps understandable for a Harvard-educated 'institutionalist' like Chief Justice John Roberts, who seems to think that the opinions of the Harvard faculty lounge still ought to govern America. Few others have any excuse – sorry, 'excuse'. Our justices and judges have one job: to understand words. Sure, it can be a difficult job. But they know how to do it well enough. As Justice Elena Kagan once famously said: 'We're all textualists now.' To understand the meaning and modern application of words written before yesterday, judges are trained to look back at 'text, history, and tradition'. But history is hard. And the Supreme Court doesn't necessarily have a grand tradition of understanding it particularly well. If it did, then the justices wouldn't have put off on process grounds ruling on the president's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. They wouldn't be setting up a waiting-forever game while barbarian cartels terrorise American citizens. They wouldn't be letting more children get murdered by turning our nation of laws into an unsovereign territory of Waiting for Godot. When the Alien Enemies Act was passed in 1798, America was a young country looking back at a Europe ruled by kingdoms. Just south of those European kingdoms, on the other side of the Mediterranean, were the Barbary states. The Barbary states weren't legitimate nation-states. They were failed, amoral, slave-trading, kleptocratic, human- and drug-trafficking states. They only existed because many Europeans were too lazy to attend to their own defence. After the Declaration of Independence of 1776, the British Empire was naturally disinclined to protect American merchant vessels. And Americans, in turn, were disinclined to just let their ships get destroyed and their people enslaved by pirates. So, we did something about it. We took it to them. As the US Marine Corps' official hymn famously goes, we took it 'to the shores of Tripoli' during the First Barbary War, which took place just a few years after the Alien Enemies Act was passed. And that's exactly what America is also doing right now. The more things change, the more they stay the same. When the Iran-backed Houthis try to disrupt international trade in the Red Sea, the US bombs them. In Yemen, Trump was doing more or less what Thomas Jefferson did two-plus centuries ago. But what would the early-republic American presidents have done if the Barbary pirates had set up shop on American soil? Just let them have their way in Boston or Philadelphia? No; they probably would have raised a militia to kill them all. Or, if it was easier, they would have arranged for them to quickly and efficiently get out of our country post-haste. They would have made use of the provisions of the Alien Enemies Act. Would Chief Justice John Marshall have effectively taken the side of these hypothetical Barbarian corsair occupiers by saying, 'Dear Mr President, not sure if you can deport these rapists, plunderers, and pillagers; did you check all your paperwork boxes regarding these illegal enemy aliens?' To ask such a rhetorical question is to answer it. The very notion that the Supreme Court might have had any place at all in the debate would have struck everyone alive as absurd. The American president at the time of the passage of the Alien Enemies Act was John Adams. Around the time, American citizens were being attacked and enslaved by Barbarian pirates. And that, mutatis mutandis, is what's happening now, too. Venezuela is a failed communist state. And confirmed Tren de Argua gangbangers are effectively Venezuelan, barbarian corsair pirates. The only difference is that they've set up shop in the American homeland. John Marshall would be appalled by John Roberts, who has taken and twisted the precedents of the Supreme Court to such a radical degree that he has essentially concluded: 'A constitutional republic? Well, maybe it can be invaded by barbarians. Maybe our women can get raped by them, our apartment buildings plundered. We're trying to figure it out!' Unfortunately for the integrity of the United States Constitution, Harvard Law School has not been sending its best. But some federal judges, we must assume, are still good people. To a Harvard-trained mind, Roberts and his colleagues are defending the Constitution as they fiddle around trying to figure out whether words mean what they say, while President Trump is the dangerous radical. To anyone who understands text, history, and tradition, though, the president has exercised the precise opposite of power-hungry arrogation: extreme restraint. Josh Hammer is Newsweek senior editor-at-large, host of The Josh Hammer Show, senior counsel for the Article III Project, and author of the new book, 'Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West' (Radius Book Group) Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Time of India
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Did President Trump study at Harvard? US Presidents who were Harvard-educated
The campus crackdown has started. The US Federal government has declared a ban on international students at Harvard University. On Thursday, the Trump administration revoked Harvard University's ability to enroll international students, marking a significant consequence for the institution due to its refusal to comply with certain policy demands from the administration. The US Department of Homeland Security released a statement indicating that Harvard can no longer enroll foreign students, and existing foreign students must either transfer or risk losing their legal status. What happened? Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem directed her department to terminate Harvard's Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) certification, citing the university's refusal to provide conduct records for foreign students as requested by the DHS in the previous month. The White House emphasized that 'enrolling foreign students is a privilege, not a right,' accusing Harvard's leadership of transforming the university into a center of what it described as anti-American and anti-Semitic sentiment. The Harvard impact: Over the years, Harvard University has significantly contributed to the US socio-economic politics. Its influence is seen through its alumni in government, research, and public policy, as well as its academic departments and centers focused on these areas. While the biggest names in the world of technology and innovations, like Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, are amongst the brightest stars of the prestigious university, there are several politicians as well (precisely, eight US Presidents), who are Harvard alumni and have shaped the United States of America. The US Presidents who were Harvard passouts: Eight US Presidents, so far, have graduated from Harvard University: John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, John F. Kennedy, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama . Bush earned his MBA from Harvard Business School, Hayes and Obama from Harvard Law School, and the others from Harvard College. John Adams (2nd President) John Adams was one of Harvard's earliest graduates, earning his degree in 1755. He went on to become a leading figure in the American Revolution and the second President of the United States. Degree: Bachelor of Arts (A.B.) Graduation Year: 1755 John Quincy Adams (6th President) The son of John Adams, John Quincy Adams graduated from Harvard in 1787. He later served as the sixth President and was noted for his diplomatic achievements. Degree: Bachelor of Arts (A.B.) Graduation Year: 1787 Rutherford B. Hayes (19th President) Hayes graduated from Harvard Law School in 1845. He served as the 19th President and was known for his efforts to reconcile the divisions left by the Civil War. Degree: Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) Graduation Year: 1845 Theodore Roosevelt (26th President) Roosevelt was a dynamic figure in American politics, known for his progressive policies and leadership during the early 20th century. Degree: Bachelor of Arts (A.B.) Graduation Year: 1880 Franklin D. Roosevelt (32nd President) Franklin D. Roosevelt, a distant cousin of Theodore Roosevelt, graduated from Harvard in 1903. He served four terms as President, leading the nation through the Great Depression and World War II. Degree: Bachelor of Arts (A.B.) Graduation Year: 1903 John F. Kennedy (35th President) Kennedy graduated from Harvard in 1940. His presidency was marked by Cold War tensions, civil rights advancements, and the space race. Degree: Bachelor of Arts in Government Graduation Year: 1940 George W. Bush (43rd President) George W. Bush earned an MBA from Harvard Business School in 1975, making him the only U.S. President to hold an MBA. He served two terms as President, overseeing the response to the September 11 attacks and the Iraq War. Degree: Master of Business Administration (MBA) Graduation Year: 1975 Barack Obama (44th President) Obama graduated from Harvard Law School in 1991. He was the first African American President, serving two terms and focusing on healthcare reform and economic recovery. Degree: Juris Doctor (J.D.) Graduation Year: 1991 Did Donald Trump go to Harvard? No, the current President of the United States of America, Donald Trump, did not attend Harvard University. After completing high school, he enrolled at Fordham University in New York City in 1964. In 1966, he transferred to the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, where he earned a bachelor's degree in economics in 1968. Trump Blasts Biden-Era Kennedy Center Facilities, Asks- Where Were The Funds Used?
Boston Globe
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
An original Magna Carta, at Harvard, in 2025 — what timing
When learned expertise is held in contempt by many, it's a reminder of the value of scholarship and such thorough knowledge of one's field that British academic David Carpenter was able to recognize the original while reviewing Harvard Law School's digitized collection. Advertisement And, of course, it's a reminder of how far backward we are sliding when even the barons of the modern world — the Bezoses, the Zuckerbergs, the Redstones, the Musks — have decided to bend their knees to absolute power. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up One might even be forgiven for wondering whether the spirit of history decided to give Harvard a little pat on the back for not bending its knee or its principles. Julia Glendon Lunenburg We are a nation that does not bow to a single ruler The discovery of an original Magna Carta is a reminder of the principles of governance that have guided this nation for nearly 250 years. May this finding lead us to remain a nation that goes by the rule of law rather than become one that declares fealty to a single individual. Edwin Andrews Advertisement Malden Magna Carta, meet MAGA Carta Reading about what was believed to be a copy of the Magna Carta at Harvard turning out to be an original got me thinking: Magna Carta, first sealed 1215 The king is subject to the law and recognizes limits to his power. MAGA Carta, 2025 The president isn't, and he doesn't. James Mahoney Cambridge
