A federal judge in Massachusetts issued an injunction Monday, granting Harvard University a preliminary injunction to block a presidential proclamation that barred non‑U.S. international students from enrolling at Harvard.
The decision, rendered by Judge Allison D. Burroughs, found that Harvard would likely prevail on the merits of their lawsuit and that an injunction to stop the administration’s efforts would be necessary while the case is being heard.
Harvard sued the Department of Homeland Security, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, and several senior administration officials after the Trump administration issued a sweeping proclamation—titled “Enhancing National Security by Addressing Risks at Harvard University.” The proclamation restricted visa entries to students and exchange visitors intending to study at Harvard, citing concerns about rising campus crime, ties to foreign nations such as China, and ideological bias .
The move followed a heated clash that began last spring, when Harvard criticized prior federal demands aimed at restructuring its governance, admissions, and diversity programs. Soon after, federal task forces began freezing nearly $9.7 billion in grants and threatening to revoke the university’s tax-exempt status. The administration then scheduled compliance audits, revoked Harvard’s SEVP visa certification, and ultimately issued the presidential proclamation .
Judge Burroughs described the proclamation as ““unusual” and “a perversion of the statute,” noting that the ban applied to international students only if they intended to attend Harvard—an unprecedented and overly broad application of the president’s power .
The court further held that the administration’s justifications—such as unspecified spikes in crime and Harvard’s receipt of foreign research funding—bore no logical connection to barring its students. The ban effectively punished the institution itself and appeared to be driven by ideological animus .
Even assuming the action was legally premised, the court found it likely would still be unconstitutional under First Amendment grounds. Harvard argued the proclamation was retaliatory and viewpoint discriminatory—violating both the First and Fifth Amendments. The court pointed to extensive administrative commentary, press releases, and social media posts calling Harvard “radical,” “Anti‑Semitic,” and “a threat to democracy.” These attacks coincided with the timing of the restrictions, strongly suggesting that the policy was driven not by legitimate security concerns but by political hostility toward Harvard’s speech and institutional decisions .
Meeting the standard for preliminary injunction—showing a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm without an injunction, and that public interest favors the university—the judge ordered the proclamation blocked from taking effect . The case will proceed to full trial, but for now, Harvard’s ability to admit and host international students remains intact.
