SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
harvard university
Case Challenging Trump's 'Ideological Deportations' of Pro-Palestine Students Heads to Court
"The policy chills noncitizens from speaking and, by extension, robs these organizations and their U.S. citizen members of noncitizens' perspectives on a matter of significant public debate," the Knight Institute said in a statement on behalf of the plaintiffs.
Jul 07, 2025
The Trump administration, for the first time, had to defend its policy of deporting immigrants for their political views in court Monday.
A case filed by a group of professors will be heard in a Massachusetts federal court. The lawsuit challenges attempts by the Trump administration to arrest and remove foreign-born college students from the country based purely on their pro-Palestine speech.
Though hundreds of cases have been filed against the Trump administration since January, this is one of very few that has reached the trial phase.
The case was filed in March by Columbia University's Knight First Amendment Institute on behalf of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP); AAUP's Harvard, NYU, and Rutgers campus chapters; and the Middle East Studies Association.
It is one of half a dozen other lawsuits filed following the arrest of Columbia graduate student and protest leader Mahmoud Khalil, who was abducted in the dead of night by plainclothes ICE officers and shipped to a detention center for nearly three months.
Khalil and several other students had their legal immigration status revoked not for having committed any crime, but because the Trump administration deemed their views at odds with the "foreign policy objective[s]" of the United States.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the defendant in this case, has acknowledged stripping the legal status of hundreds of student protesters based on their speech.
"The policy chills noncitizens from speaking and, by extension, robs these organizations and their U.S. citizen members of noncitizens' perspectives on a matter of significant public debate," the Knight Institute said in a statement on behalf of the plaintiffs.
In a pre-trial brief, the group argued that this "ideological deportation policy" illegally discriminates against students and faculty based on their pro-Palestinian viewpoints.
"The First Amendment framework that applies is straightforward," the brief said. "If a regulation of speech discriminates based on content or viewpoint, then the regulation is 'presumptively unconstitutional' unless the government demonstrates that it is 'narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests.'"
The plaintiffs argue that the intent behind the Trump administration's stripping of green cards and visas from legal holders was to punish speech they found disfavorable and to coerce others into silence.
"Noncitizen members of the AAUP have been chilled by these ideological deportations and forced to self-censor in a variety of different ways, and citizen members have been harmed as a result, because they have been deprived of the insights and engagement of their non-citizen students and colleagues," the brief said.
They cited examples of professors scrubbing their social media accounts to remove commentary on the Israel-Palestine conflict, abandoning research on the Middle East that could prove too "nuanced" for the administration's liking, and even cancelling international travel for academic opportunities for fear of being disallowed entry back into the country.
"The First Amendment does not permit government officials to use the power of their office to silence critics and suppress speech they don’t like," said Andrew Manuel Crespo, a Harvard Law professor and general counsel of the AAUP-Harvard Faculty Chapter.
The AAUP lawsuit marks the first time the Trump administration will defend its use of deportations for political speech in court. But it is not the first time the courts will rule on its attacks against higher education.
Courts have blocked the Trump administration's efforts to ban Harvard from hosting foreign students and strip its funding, saying the measures violated due process.
While the case over deportations deals with non-citizens, AAUP President Todd Wolfson said it has implications for free speech for everyone in America.
"The Trump administration is going after international scholars and students who speak their minds about Palestine, but make no mistake: they won't stop there," Wolfson said. "They'll come next for those who teach the history of slavery or who provide gender-affirming health care or who research climate change or who counsel students about their reproductive choices. We all have to draw a line together—as the old labor movement slogan says: an injury to one is an injury to all."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Harvard Must Not Make a Deal With Trump
To shy away from this fight signals one of two things: a lack of faith in the principles and strength of our democracy; or cowardice; or both.
Jul 05, 2025
Recently, our law firm filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of former government officials supporting Harvard in its legal battle with U.S. President Donald Trump over federal funding and control of its curriculum, hiring, and admissions. We came to Harvard's defense because of the threat Trump's attack on academic freedom poses to our democracy.
That case has been consolidated with another Harvard has brought to protect its right to host international students. So far Harvard has won three temporary injunctions stopping Trump in his tracks. A hearing is scheduled on July 21 to decide both cases on the merits and determine if Harvard is entitled to permanent relief.
Despite the fact it is winning, there are disturbing reports Harvard is now in talks with the White House to make a deal. That would be a grievous mistake, both as a matter of principle and common sense. And it would amount to a betrayal of those who have fearlessly stepped forward in defense of Harvard.
The point about principle should not be lost on Harvard.
Harvard's courage so far in standing up to Trump has empowered other universities and institutions to do the same. If Harvard makes a deal, it will signal weakness and others will follow.
As it well knows, Trump's actions have violated the Constitution in ways never before seen in this country. He is using the power of the federal government to force Harvard to conform to his ideological views. Democracies like ours survive only if the system of checks and balances proves it can work. With Congress in Trump's pocket, that job has fallen to the courts.
At this moment, the legal arguments in the Harvard case are framed and ready to be decided. This is the wrong time to back out of the fight. Harvard needs to let the court rule. The legal process can and will establish the unconstitutionality of Trump's orders and how they infringe on academic freedom and First Amendment rights.
This fight is not just to save our democracy. It will determine our place in history. When future generations look back at this pivotal moment, they should understand that what Trump did was not just aberrational, it was unconstitutional. They need to understand the threat it posed to academic freedom and democracy, and how our constitutional democracy responded and prevailed.
Harvard, of all places, should understand the importance of history. Its own history is entwined with the founding of our Republic and its democratic values. Eight Harvard graduates, starting with John Adams and John Hancock, signed the Declaration of Independence. At the time of the American Revolution, Harvard was 140 years old. It dismissed its students and turned the campus over to the Continental Army. Eight Harvard alumni have served as president, and 15 have served on the Supreme Court since 1902.
For almost 400 years, Harvard has taught and led. It has made history as it has studied history. It has produced some of our greatest constitutional scholars and countless Nobel laureates in every field of learning. Of all places, it should care what history will say it did when faced with this existential threat to our Republic.
From a practical standpoint, making a deal gets Harvard nothing. Trump is using the same playbook as with the law firms. He will change the terms of any deal and cut off funding in a heartbeat if Harvard does something he doesn't like. A deal does not end Trump's involvement with Harvard—just the opposite. It guarantees there will be more efforts to assert control.
The law firms that made deals look foolish now. They are losing business and partners while the firms that fought have won permanent relief in the courts. Had the firms who did the deals joined the firms that fought, the legal profession would be stronger and freer than it is now.
Harvard's situation is no different. Why would Harvard give in to any of Trump's demands when it is winning in court? If he continues to deny funding in the face of a court ordered injunction, then Harvard should be prepared to take this to the Supreme Court. That is the only way to prove we have a constitutional democracy that works. And it is the only way for Harvard to ensure academic freedom. To shy away from this fight signals one of two things: a lack of faith in the principles and strength of our democracy; or cowardice; or both.
Some supporters of Harvard wring their hands and lament the temporary loss of funds. But that is what a $53 billion endowment is for. It is there to ensure the independence of the university in a time of crisis. Whatever is spent now will be recovered from grateful alumni and supporters in the years ahead once the battle is won.
Harvard will prevail if it stands firm. Administrations come and go, but institutions like Harvard stand for ideas and principles that are designed to survive transient political movements.
Harvard's courage so far in standing up to Trump has empowered other universities and institutions to do the same. If Harvard makes a deal, it will signal weakness and others will follow.
And that, in the end, is all that Trump really wants. He understands how the perception of power can be used to build and project power. He will exploit the opportunity afforded by any deal, no matter what it requires or says, to lie about its content and terms to promote a narrative that helps him consolidate more unchecked power.
We have enjoyed the fruits of freedom and democracy for the last 85 years because in times of maximum peril, the principled resistance of those like Winston Churchill triumphed over the expediency of appeasement. This is a Churchillian moment for Harvard, one that tests its true mettle. History will judge whether it had the courage, wisdom, and strength to stand firm in defense of democracy.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump’s Lawless Attack on Harvard Is Like None Before
Trump is determined to make an example of Harvard so that other universities and institutions with money and power will do his bidding.
Jun 26, 2025
This month, our firm filed a friend of the court brief in the Harvard case on behalf of 18 former government officials who were responsible for enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the law the Trump administration relies on to justify termination of billions of dollars in federal funding to the university. The signatories to the brief are senior career and non-career appointees who served in both Republican and Democratic administrations from the 1970’s to January of this year.
One of those former officials is David Tatel, a highly respected retired judge who served as director of the Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) under President Jimmy Carter, and later as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, often called the nation’s second highest court. Judge Tatel discusses his experience overseeing Title VI enforcement in the brief. It illustrates just how lawless, destructive, and dangerous President Donald Trump’s vendetta against Harvard has become—and how different it is from any Title VI enforcement action that has gone before.
Title VI requires institutions that receive federal funds to follow civil rights laws. Institutions that discriminate can lose their funds, but it is an option of last resort.
Rather than conducting a proper investigation with detailed findings, engaging in good-faith negotiations, and allowing Harvard an opportunity to defend itself, Trump moved immediately to the nuclear option that hurts everyone.
Before funds are cut, the government must conduct a proper investigation to determine if discrimination exists and the law has been violated; it must make genuine, good faith efforts to work with the fund recipient to secure voluntary compliance; and where settlement is unsuccessful, the recipient must have a chance to present its case in court.
These constraints are written into Title VI and the regulations federal agencies must follow. They protect the interests of universities like Harvard, but more important, they maintain the delivery of services to the ultimate beneficiaries of federal programs as much as possible. In the case of Harvard, those beneficiaries include not just its students and faculty, but millions around the world who benefit from advances in science, medicine, and technology that flow from Harvard’s research programs and facilities.
Judge Tatel refers to fund termination as the nuclear option: “it is like dropping an atom bomb—everyone gets hurt.”
In his time enforcing Title VI, Tatel faced egregious violations of civil rights laws by school districts and universities, involving refusals to comply with court desegregation orders, and the firing of Black teachers.
Tatel recalls traveling to remote school districts in Texas and Arkansas, meeting with school superintendents to learn about their issues and work out agreements. He did the same with the city of Chicago, taking months to investigate concerns and negotiate over how to achieve voluntary compliance with a desegregation plan that would serve the interests of students, the city, and the federal government.
Universities were no different. Tatel carefully negotiated agreements with the public university systems of Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Oklahoma, and Virginia to remove the vestiges of racially dual education systems in those five states.
The University of North Carolina took longer, but Tatel and his boss, HEW Secretary Joseph Califano, stayed with it for years, meeting repeatedly with the UNC president and North Carolina Gov. Jim Hunt to craft an acceptable plan. Ultimately an agreement was worked out by the Reagan administration.
The approach to Title VI enforcement Judge Tatel followed and that is mandated by the statute has worked time and again. As a result, the termination of funds has been rare. Thousands of Title VI complaints have been filed during the decades Tatel and the signatories to the brief oversaw enforcement. They are aware of none that has resulted in fund termination since 1982.
Contrast this with way Trump has pursued alleged Title VI concerns with Harvard. After receiving notification of the government’s allegations of antisemitism on campus in February, Harvard explained the reforms it had undertaken and said it was open to exploring further reforms. Trump responded with an unprecedented and unconstitutional demand, requiring Harvard to submit to government control of the viewpoints expressed on campus. When Harvard refused to cede control of its teaching, community and governance, Trump moved within hours to terminate all federal funding.
The consequences to Harvard are dire. The cuts affect billions of dollars in funding that support medical breakthroughs, scientific discoveries, and national security. Harvard filed suit in court, challenging the fund termination as unconstitutional retaliation for exercising its First Amendment rights and its right to defend itself.
Trump responded by doubling down, ordering the Department of Homeland Security to revoke Harvard’s certification to host the 7,000 international students currently enrolled at Harvard. Harvard filed a second suit to protect these students, and Trump retaliated yet again, issuing a new Executive Order directing the State Department to take actions designed to prevent new international students coming to Harvard from entering the country.
Nothing could be further from the process mandated by Title VI for resolving allegations of discrimination, or the process successfully followed by past administrations and those charged with enforcing Title VI. Rather than conducting a proper investigation with detailed findings, engaging in good-faith negotiations, and allowing Harvard an opportunity to defend itself, Trump moved immediately to the nuclear option that hurts everyone.
What explains this blatantly lawless conduct? In my view the answer is clear.
Trump is not interested in resolving allegations of discrimination, any more than he is interested in determining if the allegations have merit in the first instance. His motives are retaliatory and punitive. They are designed to assert control over America’s oldest, wealthiest, and most prestigious university—a powerful institution he has concluded is not aligned with his political ideology.
He is determined to make an example of Harvard so that other universities and institutions with money and power will do his bidding.
We are now well down a path toward authoritarianism. The importance of the battle between Trump and Harvard cannot be overstated. It will determine more than the future of academic freedom in America. It may well determine the future of our democracy.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular