Judge Issues Preliminary Injunction Blocking Trump’s Entry Ban on International Harvard Students

Updated June 23, 2025, at 10:18 p.m.

A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction on Monday halting President Donald Trump’s June 4 proclamation banning travelers from entering the United States on Harvard-sponsored F and J visas.

The order — which came less than four hours before a previous temporary block on the proclamation was set to expire — will grant a reprieve to Harvard until the court reaches a decision in the University’s lawsuit over the Trump administration’s attacks on its international students.

And it signals that U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs, who is overseeing the case, is likely to eventually rule in Harvard’s favor.

In a scorching 44-page memorandum, Burroughs wrote that Trump’s attempts to justify the proclamation on the basis of national security were a flimsy disguise for retaliation against Harvard.

“The Proclamation quite obviously has no ‘legitimate grounding’ in its stated concerns, and it is ‘inexplicable by anything but animus,’” Burroughs wrote.

Burroughs’ order gives Harvard its second legal victory against the White House in less than a week. On Friday, she handed down a separate preliminary injunction blocking the federal government’s May 22 revocation of Harvard’s authorization to enroll foreign students.

The injunction last week did not pause the Trump administration’s second attempt, which could take effect as soon as Friday — and Burroughs left the matter of Trump’s proclamation until Monday, when she tore into Justice Department lawyers’ attempt to place the entry ban under the president’s expansive national security powers.

She dismissed the administration’s attempts to separate the proclamation from Trump’s threats against Harvard and denunciations of its resistance to government demands, writing that their “reading of the record is so selective as to border on absurd.”

The legal standoff between the University and the White House began in early April after Harvard publicly rejected far-reaching demands from the Trump administration, which had asked the University to screen international applicants for their political beliefs, hire new faculty to enforce “viewpoint diversity,” derecognize a list of pro-Palestine student groups, and make a slew of other internal changes.

Within hours, the Trump administration cut more than $2 billion in federal funding to Harvard, and the University sued — but the confrontation did not end there.

Federal agencies continued to slash funding, and the Department of Homeland Security threatened to revoke Harvard’s authorization to host international students unless the University turned over dossiers on their disciplinary histories and participation in protests.

On May 22, the DHS followed through with its threat, and Harvard launched its second lawsuit. Weeks later, with the revocation of the University’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification stalled in court, Trump issued his proclamation.

Throughout the conflict, Trump and other government officials denounced Harvard in a steady stream of social media posts, press releases, and media appearances. But on Monday, Burroughs repeatedly turned their own words against them.

She cited a series of messages suggesting Harvard was teaching students “radical ideology,” hiring “Leftist dopes,” and bringing punishment on itself by continuing to defy Trump’s demands.

And she pointed to the messages as proof that the administration had engaged in viewpoint discrimination against Harvard for its perceived political leanings and retaliated over its rejection of the federal government’s demands.

Taken together, Burroughs wrote, the administration’s campaign constitutes “misplaced efforts to control a reputable academic institution and squelch diverse viewpoints seemingly because they are, in some instances, opposed to this Administration’s own views.”

“To make matters worse, the government attempts to accomplish this, at least in part, on the backs of international students,” she added.

Even as the federal government faces repeated obstacles in front of Burroughs, it has largely continued its anti-Harvard rhetoric.

Though Trump claimed in a Friday Truth Social post that Harvard had been cooperative in negotiations with the White House, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem doubled down against Harvard in a Washington Post op-ed published Monday morning.

“I remain prepared to revoke Harvard University’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, which allows the university to admit foreign students,” Noem wrote. She accused Harvard of noncompliance with federal records requests, fostering “antisemitic extremism,” and “collaborating on research backed by foreign agents from adversarial regimes.”

But Harvard celebrated Burroughs’ ruling. Jason A. Newton, a University spokesperson, wrote in a statement that Burroughs’ order “will continue to allow Harvard to host international students and scholars while this case moves forward.”

“Harvard will continue to defend its rights — and the rights of its students and scholars,” he wrote. A White House spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Because Harvard’s lawsuit does not name Trump personally, instead identifying a slew of federal agencies responsible for enforcing immigration policy as defendants, Burroughs’ order bars the agencies from carrying out Trump’s order.

Some students and scholars have been caught amid quickly shifting federal guidance — some with visa paperwork placed in administrative limbo, others held for hours and then turned away at Boston Logan International Airport. Burroughs’ order may grant them a measure of stability.

International students make up roughly a quarter of Harvard’s student body, and Harvard had argued that the entry ban would be a devastating blow to its incoming classes and to labs that rely on international researchers.

Burroughs agreed on Monday that Harvard was likely to sustain immediate and irreparable harm if she did not pause Trump’s proclamation, and framed the case in solemn terms.

“At its root, this case is about core constitutional rights that must be safeguarded: freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and freedom of speech, each of which is a pillar of a functioning democracy and an essential hedge against authoritarianism,” Burroughs wrote.

“As George Washington said, if freedom of speech is taken away, then ‘dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the Slaughter,’” she added.

Correction: June 25, 2025

A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that the Department of Homeland Security’s second attempt to revoke Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification could lift as soon as Wednesday. In fact, the 30-day period for Harvard to respond ends Friday.

—Staff writer Matan H. Josephy can be reached matan.josephy@thecrimson.com. Follow him on X @matanjosephy.

—Staff writer Laurel M. Shugart can be reached at laurel.shugart@thecrimson.com. Follow them on X @laurelmshugart.