Trump effort to keep Harvard from hosting foreign students blocked by federal judge

NY Post ^ | 6/20/25 | Victor Nava

[Libloather]

A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration’s efforts to stop Harvard University from hosting foreign nationals on student visas.

US District Judge Allison Burroughs’s preliminary injunction extends a temporary block she issued last month, which prevented the Trump administration from revoking the Ivy League school’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) certification.

The certification allows Harvard to host roughly 7,000 international students – about 27% of the school’s total enrollment.

The injunction will remain in effect until the underlying case is decided, the Obama-appointed judge ruled.

The ruling marks another legal victory for the Cambridge, Massachusetts school as it challenges several sanctions ordered against it by President Trump.

Harvard filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration in May after the Department of Homeland Security withdrew the school’s SEVP certification, which would’ve forced foreign nationals attending Harvard to transfer out of the prestigious institution.

The university claims the revocation is retaliation for its rejection of White House demands to overhaul campus protest, admission and hiring policies over antisemitism concerns.

Harvard had also refused Trump’s request for it to turn over foreign students’ records, including any video or audio of their protest activity in the past five years.

[Libloather]

This crap is getting old.

[FreeperCell]

I noticed that too.

[TheWriterTX]

Fine.

Just revoke the student visas.

Can’t come into the country or must leave?

Don’t bother paying that tuition.

[VideoDoctor]

Another "DIM-BULB" Judge who will shortly be OVERRULED.

[DeplorablePaul]

Patience. Harvard is up against the unlimited resources of the federal government and getting a taste of its own lawfare medicine. The process is the punishment. In the end Harvard will beg mercy.

[Macho MAGA Man]

(Fine.

Just revoke the student visas.)

A lib judge will rule against that too.

[mass55th]

"Just revoke the student visas."

That was my thinking too.

[tumblindice]

nominated by Barack Obama in 2014
‘Politics by other means’

[Macho MAGA Man]

(Just revoke the student visas.)

Didn’t Jimmy Carter do that to Iranian students when the hostage situation happened?

[poconopundit]

Hey, mass55th, my guess is a huge portion of those 17% of Harvard international students are from China.  Would love to know the actual figure — maybe that will soon be revealed.

When I lived in Athens, Georgia, I heard 300 students from China were enrolled in the University of Georgia's 35,000 undergraduate program.

The saving grace is Chinese students (spies) who want to steal America's secrets will get mostly negative training at Harvard.  Instead they will gain in DEI and bureaucratic (anti-capitalist) skills. 

Harvard's perfect for grooming bureaucrats and anti-We-the-People to discourage free market freedom in China.  So I suspect Harvard training will do more harm than good to people in Hong Kong yearning to break free from the Communist throat choke.

And I'd be more concerned about Chinese students admitted to top technical schools like MIT and Stanford.

In any case, Xi's daughter once attended Harvard, so I'm sure China's senior leadership is well-aware of Trump's fight with Harvard.  Indeed, the controversy may also serve as a negotiating tool to knock down China's trade deficit.

Just a thought.

[Does so]

Another judge who “couldn’t make it” at an attorney’s office.

[Pocketdoor]

So Chinese spys are going to learn dei and bring that back to China. Lol that will infect China for years. OMG that is so funny. I hope it happens.

[Revel]

Don’t get around to issuing them in the first place.

[Diogenesis]

Harvard University OWES America 200 Trillion dollars
for attempting a coup with Obama and the fake Indian
Senator whom they have IMPOSED — with Harvard Fraud —
on the American People against the Constitution.

Every brick of Harvard should be sold.

[nathanbedford]

I essentially agree with you.

Rather than reacting to the court's ruling curbing the president's power to regulate student visas to Harvard as a struggle for upmanship by Donald Trump vs. the courts, as a conservative forum committed to the Constitution, we ought to discuss the issue in terms of the powers as outlined in the Constitution.

How did Congress exercise that power, did Congress delegate this kind of discretion to the president, does the president have inherent Article III power to regulate these visas, does Harvard or the students have inviolable First Amendment or other constitutional rights that override congressional provisions or presidential actions?

Additionally, we ought to be considering what powers we want the president to have in circumstances like these, always having regard for the shoe on the other foot rule that asks would we be happy with this rule if it were a Democrat in power? Do we always want a strong executive or do we want Congress to oversee and regulate more closely?

How active do we want the courts to be? Does it depend on the nature of the power being exercised by the president? For example, presidential power to manage the Armed Forces as commander-in-chief would presumably be relatively free of congressional and judicial oversight. But presidential power to curb speech might perhaps be better if it were closely held to constitutional standards.

[grey_whiskers]

The left always regards the Constitution as a “living breathing document” when they want to get around its prohibitions, but treat it as cast iron when they can use it to restrict the right.

The other problem is that Congress is filled with Traitors and Grifters, not Representatives. They fail to exercise their authority for the citizens, rather deciding to act as fraud machines for Democrat networks and large corporations, rather than representing the interests of citizens.

Trump is the first America-First person in DC since Reagan.

Quit trolling.

[nathanbedford]

Have the intellectual integrity put the shoe on the other foot and, while you're at it, lay off the personal attack.

[FlipWilson]

I don’t think NathabBed is trolling. He is being refreshingly idealistic in a way that is faithful to the Constitution. In short, putting forth thr points we should be debating.

But you raise great points that reflect the sad reality of our situation. The Left has turned the Courts into a “super legislature” dedicated to nullifying the opposition and rubber stamping their team’s actions. This is how the Left insulates themselves from what they see as “unfortunate” results from the electorate. In this way, heads they win, tails they lose but they really win no matter what.

The end result is that we are conditioned to view the Judicial Branch with much earned skepticism. Whenever a decision goes against our team we instantly view it from the political lens. We don’t read the decision to glean some Constitutional rationale steeped in separation of powers principles. Instead, we review it from the lens of looking at the Judge as a forum shopped political hack.

Me personally, I view it from the standpoint of having numerous colleagues who have clerked for Judges (including during Bush v. Gore). Those colleagues have all testified that the liberal Judges tend to tell their clerks “here is the result I want, craft something that justifies it.” It is result first, law later or if at all.

[grey_whiskers]

I am exhibiting intellectual integrity: I’m taking a 30,000 foot view — which shows that your concerns are properly addressed by looking at the individuals and groups involved.

Your remarks would have been useful in the early 1800s, but are not so anymore, because the players have been corrupted.

Democrats lie and cheat and RINOS let them, and occasionally backstab.

Note I referred to your behavior (”trolling”) and not calling you a troll, because I think you know better that your post indicated. I only assume you got caught up in the excitement of the moment.

Your post may inspire a vanity on the behavior of the Dems, the first one I’ve had time to write in years.

[grey_whiskers]

See my reply in post 19, which largely echoes yours.

In response to your last paragraph, see also the numerous left-wing District Judges (the most infamous being Boasberg, who managed to get himself inserted into several important early cases against Trump) who take it upon themselves to issue nationwide rulings against the President.

Which remain in force until a higher court overturns them (if the higher court even ever gets around to it).