ACE, joined by 22 other national higher education associations, filed an
amicus brief yesterday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit supporting Harvard University in its lawsuit challenging a Trump administration effort to bar international students from attending.
The brief urges the appeals court to affirm a preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs last June that blocked enforcement of a presidential proclamation that would have suspended the entry of foreign nationals seeking to study at Harvard. ACE and the other signatories argue that the proclamation represents an unprecedented misuse of executive authority that threatens institutional autonomy, academic freedom, and core First Amendment protections across higher education.
“If the federal government may punish a university for its perceived ideology or that of its students, then the marketplace of ideas collapses into a monopoly of dogma,” the brief warns.
Background
The appeal arises from a series of actions taken by the Trump administration in spring 2025 targeting Harvard’s participation in federal international student programs. After the Department of Homeland Security
attempted to revoke Harvard’s certification under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program—an action Burroughs blocked on procedural and substantive grounds—the administration issued a
presidential proclamation aimed at achieving the same result by suspending the entry of international students bound for Harvard.
Burroughs later issued a
preliminary injunction preventing the government from enforcing the proclamation, concluding that the case implicated core constitutional protections and raised serious concerns about viewpoint-based retaliation against a private academic institution. The Trump administration appealed that ruling to the First Circuit, arguing that the president’s authority over immigration and foreign affairs is not subject to judicial review.
The Associations’ Argument
In its amicus brief, ACE and the other higher education associations focus on the extraordinary implications of the case for colleges and universities nationwide, not just Harvard. The brief argues that the First Amendment protects the autonomy of educational institutions to govern themselves free from unwarranted federal intrusion, and that this autonomy is essential to the nation’s academic, scientific, and civic interests.
The associations emphasize that while colleges and universities remain subject to generally applicable laws and appropriate government oversight, the actions at issue in this case go far beyond permissible regulation. Instead, they argue, the proclamation reflects an effort to punish a single institution for perceived viewpoints by leveraging immigration policy in a manner that would chill speech and academic decision-making across higher education.
The brief also highlights the unusual and targeted nature of the proclamation. International students would remain eligible to enter the United States to study at any institution other than Harvard—underscoring, the associations argue, that the measure is punitive rather than regulatory in character.
“Its actions are dangerous—not just for Harvard, and not just for higher education, but for the nation as a whole,” the groups cautioned.
Broader Impact on Higher Education
ACE and its co-signatories warn that allowing the proclamation to stand would have consequences far beyond this single case, creating a chilling effect on institutional governance, campus expression, and the free exchange of ideas. Colleges and universities, they argue, could face pressure to alter academic programs, research priorities, or campus policies to avoid becoming targets of similar executive action.
The brief situates the Harvard case in the broader context of recent federal actions affecting international students and scholars, including heightened visa scrutiny and abrupt changes to student status. ACE contends that these developments threaten the global engagement that has long been a defining strength of American higher education.
The First Circuit is expected to consider the government’s appeal in the coming months.
