Harvard University, Champion of Academia, Confronts Trump Administration's

Controversial Foreign Student Directive
In a dramatic legal confrontation that underscored the deep tensions between the Trump administration and the nation's leading academic institutions, Harvard University, alongside the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), launched a high-stakes lawsuit in July 2020 against a new directive issued by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This contentious policy threatened to bar international students from remaining in the United States if their universities planned to offer only online instruction in the upcoming fall semester, a critical adaptation for many institutions grappling with the unprecedented challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Boston, was more than a mere legal challenge; it was a powerful assertion of academic freedom, institutional autonomy, and the invaluable contributions of foreign scholars to American higher education.
The backdrop to this legal showdown was the global health crisis that had upended daily life and forced universities worldwide to re-evaluate their educational models. As the coronavirus spread, many institutions, including Harvard, made the difficult but seemingly necessary decision to move large portions, if not all, of their coursework online for the fall 2020 semester to safeguard the health and safety of their students, faculty, and staff. This strategic pivot, however, collided head-on with the Trump administration's aggressive stance on immigration and its apparent desire to compel a rapid return to in-person activities across the country. On July 6, 2020, ICE announced its updated Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) guidance, effectively reversing temporary exemptions that had allowed international students to remain in the U.S. while pursuing online-only studies during the spring and summer semesters. The new directive explicitly stated that nonimmigrant F-1 and M-1 students attending schools operating entirely online would not be permitted to stay in the United States, nor would the Department of State issue visas to new students enrolled in such programs. Those already in the country were faced with the stark choice: transfer to a school offering in-person instruction or depart the U.S. This policy, delivered without prior warning or a period for public comment, sent shockwaves through the academic community.
Harvard and MIT wasted no time in mounting their legal offensive. On July 8, 2020, just two days after the ICE announcement, they filed a joint lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary and permanent injunction to prevent the enforcement of the directive. Harvard President Lawrence S. Bacow, in a powerful statement to the university community, decried the policy, labeling its cruelty as "surpassed only by its recklessness." He emphasized that the directive was "unlawful" and "unwarranted," asserting that it would have "immediate and devastating effect" on the university's approximately 5,000 international students, who constitute a significant portion of its diverse student body. The lawsuit highlighted that the directive arbitrarily sought to force universities to choose between the health and safety of their communities and the continued education of their international students, presenting a "false and dangerous choice."
The core of Harvard's legal argument rested on several key pillars, primarily challenging the legality of the ICE directive under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The lawsuit contended that the agency had violated the APA by issuing the guidance without providing adequate notice and an opportunity for public comment, a standard requirement for significant regulatory changes. Furthermore, Harvard argued that the directive was "arbitrary and capricious" because ICE had failed to consider the severe and negative consequences it would impose on international students, universities, and the nation as a whole. This included the logistical impossibility for thousands of students to transfer institutions or return to their home countries on short notice amidst a global pandemic, the immense financial and operational strain on universities scrambling to adapt, and the profound loss of intellectual capital and diversity that international students bring to American campuses. The complaint also suggested that the policy was a politically motivated attempt by the Trump administration to pressure universities to reopen their campuses for in-person instruction, regardless of public health concerns, effectively using international students as leverage.
The lawsuit quickly garnered widespread support from across the higher education landscape and beyond. Dozens of universities, educational associations, and state attorneys general filed amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs in support of Harvard and MIT, underscoring the broad consensus that the ICE directive was ill-conceived and harmful. These amici highlighted the critical role international students play in the U.S. economy, contributing billions of dollars annually, fostering innovation, and enriching the cultural and academic environment of campuses nationwide. They also articulated the practical nightmare the policy created: many international students, particularly those from countries with severe travel restrictions or limited internet access, faced the prospect of being stranded abroad without their educational opportunities or, conversely, being forced to attend in-person classes in a potentially unsafe environment. The collective voice of higher education, unified against the directive, provided significant legal and public pressure.
The swift and decisive legal action by Harvard and MIT, coupled with the overwhelming chorus of opposition from the higher education sector, ultimately led to a remarkable and rapid reversal by the Trump administration. On July 14, 2020, during a federal court hearing on the lawsuit, the government announced that it would rescind the controversial July 6 directive. This sudden withdrawal of the policy, just eight days after its announcement and amidst widespread legal challenges, was hailed as a major victory for universities and international students. Harvard President Bacow, in a follow-up statement, expressed his delight at the news, noting that the withdrawal had "nationwide effect" and brought "enormous relief" to countless international students. He emphasized that the directive had disrupted "all of American higher education" and had put many students "at serious risk." While acknowledging the possibility of the government issuing new guidance, Bacow affirmed that the university's "legal arguments remain strong" and that the court had retained jurisdiction, allowing for immediate judicial relief if unlawful actions were taken again.
The rescission of the ICE directive allowed universities across the country to proceed with their carefully developed plans for the fall 2020 semester, whether fully online, in-person, or hybrid, without fear of their international students being deported. The episode underscored the immense power of legal challenge and collective action in influencing government policy. It served as a stark reminder of the vulnerability of international students to shifting immigration regulations and the profound impact such policies can have on their lives and educational trajectories. For Harvard and its peer institutions, the lawsuit was not merely about winning a legal battle; it was about upholding their core values of global engagement, academic excellence, and the creation of a diverse and inclusive learning environment. The quick capitulation by the administration, spurred by a robust legal challenge and widespread condemnation, demonstrated that even in times of political upheaval, the foundational principles of due process, careful rulemaking, and the value of international exchange can prevail.
Source@BBC