This is the matter I wrote about yesterday; the judge issued a temporary restraining order "to preserve the status quo pending a hearing" on Harvard's preliminary injunction motion. The hearing is set for next Thursday morning (May 29). You can read Harvard's arguments for the TRO here; I expect its arguments for a preliminary injunction will be similar. From the Introduction:
For more than 70 years, Harvard University … has been certified by the federal government to enroll international students under the F-1 visa program, and it has long been designated as an exchange visitor program sponsor to host J-1 nonimmigrants. Harvard has, over this time, developed programs and degrees tailored to its international students and invested millions to recruit the most talented such students and integrate them into all aspects of the Harvard community. Yesterday, the government abruptly revoked Harvard's certification to host F-1 and J-1 students without process or cause, to devastating effect for Harvard and more than 7,000 Harvard students and affiliates on F-1 and J-1 visas.
The government's revocation of Harvard's certification was not a product of the ordinary review process set out in detailed regulations that define the limited circumstances under which a school's certification may be revoked and put a premium on the due process rights of institutions and students. On its face, the revocation is part of the government's broader effort to retaliate against Harvard for its refusal to surrender its academic independence.
In response to the government's disagreement with the perceived viewpoints of Harvard, its faculty, and its students, the government issued a series of demands requiring Harvard to submit to government oversight of the faculty it hires, the students it admits, and the courses it teaches. When Harvard declined, the Administration unleashed the full power of the federal government, freezing billions in federal grants, proposing to eliminate Harvard's tax-exempt status, opening multiple federal investigations, and—most relevant here—threatening to terminate Harvard's participation in the F-1 and J-1 visa programs.
Yesterday, the government made good on that threat—and it did so via a letter that makes plain that DHS is not even pretending to follow its own regulations, either as to process or as to substance. Instead, DHS all but announced that the revocation is blatantly in retaliation for Harvard's exercise of its academic freedom.
Revoking Harvard's certification is unlawful many times over. It is a pillar of our constitutional system that the government cannot "invok[e] legal sanctions and other means of coercion" to police private speech, especially when the government's treatment is animated by viewpoint discrimination. NRA v. Vullo (2024) (quoting Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan (1963)). Prohibitions on viewpoint discrimination and on retaliation for protected speech are at the core of the First Amendment's protections. And especially so here, because "academic freedom" is "a special concern of the First Amendment." Keyishian v. Bd. of Regents (1967). The government's effort to punish the University for its refusal to surrender its academic independence and for its perceived viewpoint is a patent violation of the First Amendment.
