On May 22, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), led by Secretary Kristi Noem, revoked Harvard University’s certification under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP)—a designation required for U.S. institutions to legally host international students. The move immediately jeopardized the legal status of over 6,800 international students at Harvard.
The administration justified its decision by alleging that Harvard failed to comply with federal requests for detailed records on international students, including disciplinary histories and protest activity. DHS further accused the university of fostering antisemitism and claimed, without substantiation, that Harvard maintained ties to the Chinese Communist Party.
Harvard swiftly rejected the accusations, calling the action both “unlawful” and “retaliatory.” The university resolved to file a lawsuit in federal court to challenge the revocation.
At its core, the Trump administration’s decision raises serious legal and constitutional questions:
• First Amendment: Harvard argues that the federal government’s demands infringe on academic freedom and free speech by targeting how the university handles campus protests and implements diversity policies.
• Administrative Procedure Act (APA): The sudden decertification—without prior notice or opportunity to respond—appears to violate the APA’s requirement that federal agencies act transparently and reasonably.
• Fifth Amendment Due Process: With thousands of students at risk of losing their visa status, the university contends the action denies both the institution and its students fundamental procedural rights.
Legal Remedies and Where the Case Stands
Harvard’s principal remedy is through Federal courts. And the potential outcomes are as follows:
Possible Outcomes
1. Preliminary Injunction Becomes Permanent (Highly Likely)
Given the urgency and constitutional weight of the case, the injunction may become permanent—preserving Harvard’s certification as the case moves forward.
2. Full Reinstatement of SEVP Certification (Moderate to High Likelihood)
If the court finds DHS acted arbitrarily or retaliatorily, it is likely to order the full reinstatement of Harvard’s certification, reestablishing its authority to enroll international students.
3. Appeal or Supreme Court Review (Moderate Likelihood)
Should the administration lose at the district level, it may appeal to the circuit court—and potentially the U.S. Supreme Court—especially if broader questions of immigration and institutional autonomy are at play.
4. Administrative Reversal or Settlement (Low to Moderate Likelihood)
To avoid extended litigation or public backlash, the administration could quietly reverse the decision or agree to a conditional reinstatement (e.g., contingent on limited data-sharing), particularly if political pressure mounts.
What’s at Stake
This dispute isn’t just about one university’s certification—it’s a high-stakes confrontation over the limits of federal authority, academic freedom, and the treatment of international students. The outcome could shape how U.S. universities interact with federal oversight, especially when political motivations threaten institutional independence.
Regardless of how the case unfolds, one thing is clear: the legal and cultural implications will reverberate far beyond Harvard’s gates.