US court halts Trump's ban on foreign student visa order

"Introduction

In June 2025, former U.S. President Donald Trump implemented an administrative action to restrict foreign students' entry into the United States. This measure directly targeted major institutions of higher education in the U.S., including Harvard University, and triggered immediate repercussions not only in the U.S. education sector but also in the international community. Through Executive Order 10949, former President Trump sought to completely restrict the entry of new foreign students and attempted to revoke Harvard University's SEVP (Student and Exchange Visitor Program) eligibility via the Department of Homeland Security. This effectively made it impossible for Harvard to accommodate foreign students. Such actions directly violate the operational principles of U.S. universities, which prioritize educational autonomy and internationalization, and provoked a strong backlash from the educational community. Harvard University, in particular, promptly filed a lawsuit in federal court, initiating legal action, and U.S. courts responded by placing restrictions on former President Trump's executive order through a series of injunctions. This essay explores the attempts by the Trump administration to ban the entry of foreign students and the judicial process responding to this in U.S. federal courts, examining the conflict between academia, politics, and legal procedures. It aims to consider how the principles of freedom and checks and balances operate within American society.

Main part

2.1 Actions of Former President Trump Former President Donald Trump has taken steps to rekindle anti-immigrant sentiments as part of his campaign for re-election in 2025. At the center of this is the idea of blocking the influx of foreigners through higher education institutions. Trump has argued that foreign students are taking away job and educational opportunities from Americans, advocating for the need to ensure priority for Americans. The announced Executive Order 10949 includes provisions to ban the entry of new foreign students and to empower the government to suspend the SEVP status of U.S. colleges at its discretion. Notably, this measure went into effect with a direct reference to Harvard University, leading to criticisms that it was an obvious political target. Harvard has long been a representative institution that values the international character and diversity of scholarship by accepting students from various nationalities. Trump's actions not only contradict this educational philosophy but also raise suspicions of abuse of administrative power. This has generated concerns across the American education sector as well as in political, legal, and international academic networks.

Legal Response from Harvard

2.2 Harvard's Legal Response Harvard University has taken a strong stance by immediately filing a lawsuit in federal court against former President Trump's executive order. Harvard argues that this measure is not merely an immigration policy but an unconstitutional act that infringes upon the freedoms of scholarship and expression guaranteed by the Constitution. The university also emphasized that it is a retaliatory administrative order targeting specific institutions. In its lawsuit, Harvard made the following claims. First, the executive order was implemented abruptly without prior notice or opportunity for public comment, which is a clear violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Second, this action violates the autonomy and discretion of educational institutions and constitutes inappropriate interference in the operation of higher education institutions. Third, despite foreign students being legally entitled to pursue their studies in the U.S., they will face significant disadvantages due to arbitrary restrictions on their entry. Additionally, Harvard University contended that thousands of international students and participants in exchange programs have been unable to continue their studies and careers due to the sudden administrative order. Furthermore, it pointed out that many international academic collaboration programs have been suspended or delayed, which could seriously damage the global standing of American higher education.

Flow of Court Rulings

2.3 Court Ruling Flow In response to the lawsuit filed by Harvard University, Judge Allison Burrows of the Massachusetts Federal District Court acted swiftly. On June 6, the court temporarily halted actions by the Trump administration through a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). Subsequently, on June 16, a Preliminary Injunction was issued, suspending the enforcement of the SEVP designation revocation and the ban on the entry of foreign students until a final ruling is made. Judge Burrows pointed out in the ruling that "this action appears to be a politically motivated attack on a specific university and was enacted without even meeting the minimum requirements of administrative procedures." She emphasized that "academic freedom is among the core values of democracy, and this freedom should not be compromised for political purposes." On June 20, the scope of this Preliminary Injunction was expanded to include additional measures that would allow foreign freshmen at Harvard University to register and existing students to maintain their residency status. As a result, the actions of the Trump administration lost their legal effect, and the enforcement of the order was effectively suspended.

Core Issue Analysis

2.4 Key Issues Analysis The court's pushback against the actions of the Trump administration raises fundamental questions beyond simple political conflict, concerning constitutional values and the limits of executive power. First, there is the issue of procedural legitimacy. Executive orders must clearly define the public interest and undergo prior review and consultation, ensuring appropriate notice to stakeholders. However, this proclamation was issued without prior warning or consultation with Harvard University, and its implementation was immediate. This contravenes the principles of legal stability and predictability. Second, there are allegations of retaliation. Former President Trump has repeatedly criticized Harvard University as a "hub of leftist education," and this action is understood in that political context. The court determined that if the executive branch targets specific institutions with its policies, it could undermine the principle of political neutrality. Third, there is the issue of academic freedom and the international character of U.S. higher education. American universities have welcomed exceptional talent from around the world, serving as a center for global research and technological innovation. International students are not merely learners but integral members of research labs, representing vital resources for cultural and knowledge exchange. If such a structure is obstructed by unilateral executive orders, the competitiveness of American universities will inevitably diminish.

Conclusion

3. Conclusion The foreign student entry ban attempted by former President Trump in 2025 was not merely an administrative policy. It was a significant battleground surrounding the autonomy and internationality of education, academic freedom, and the procedural legitimacy of democracy. The response shown by the U.S. courts illustrates that American society is still operating under the constitutional principle of checks and balances. Harvard University's legal challenge was not only about protecting its own students but also contained significance in defending the philosophy and freedom of higher education in the United States. Had the courts not intervened, similar political pressures might have been repeated at other educational institutions. In this sense, the incident reaffirmed the principle that higher education should be independent of politics. This matter may receive further consideration from higher courts or the Supreme Court in the future, and the outcome could establish important legal precedents that will shape the scope of administrative authority in the U.S. and the standards for academic autonomy. In conclusion, this incident transcended mere entry issues it was a case that questioned how democracy functions and the essence of education. The U.S. courts once again affirmed that the value of academic freedom outweighs political pressure. This has been received as a meaningful signal for educational institutions and democratic societies worldwide.