A federal judge swiftly blocked the Trump administration’s new visa restrictions just hours after Harvard filed a legal challenge.

U.S. District Judge Allison Dale Burroughs halted a freeze on student and research visas instituted by President Donald Trump, siding with Harvard University's challenge to the policy, as Breitbart reports.

The decision came the same day Harvard submitted its lawsuit opposing the federal government's pause on issuing F-1 and J-1 visas for international students and researchers. These visa categories are commonly used by academic institutions to support their global student and research communities.

Judge Burroughs has a history of ruling in favor of Harvard’s institutional policies. In 2019, she sided with the university in a case defending race-based admissions, a decision later struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Obama-appointed judge halts Trump freeze

Appointed to the federal bench in 2014 by President Barack Obama, Burroughs has drawn scrutiny for her prior defense of Harvard’s admissions policies involving racial preferences. That earlier case, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, was ultimately overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2023, which rejected the use of race-conscious admissions.

Despite that precedent, Burroughs again supported Harvard in a legal matter by issuing a ruling that paused Trump’s visa restrictions affecting foreign students and scholars. Hours after the university filed its latest complaint, the judge delivered a swift, albeit temporary, injunction against the policy.

Trump seeks Harvard's compliance

The visa freeze had been presented by the Trump administration as a tool to encourage elite institutions to comply with civil rights law. The administration expressed concern that prestigious universities were not adhering to anti-discrimination mandates despite receiving federal support.

Trump invoked Section 1182(f) of federal law to implement the visa suspension. Under this statute, the president has broad discretion to restrict or suspend the entry of certain groups or individuals into the United States if it is deemed detrimental to national interests.

In a 2018 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed this authority. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the statute “entrusts to the President the decisions” about when and whom to exclude, with language that defers to executive discretion in matters of immigration.

Legal precedents, executive power under scrutiny

The same section of law cited by the Trump administration in the visa dispute was upheld in a landmark 2018 Supreme Court decision. In that case, the court ruled 5–4 in favor of presidential authority to enact immigration restrictions based on national interest determinations.

Roberts emphasized that Section 1182(f) gives the president power to act “whenever” he identifies a potential threat to the nation’s interests, for “such period” as he determines, and under “any restrictions” he considers fit.

The Trump administration is expected to appeal Judge Burroughs’ recent ruling. Legal scholars believe the case could again test the boundaries of presidential immigration powers established under federal law and recognized by the high court.

Implications yet to unfold

The Burroughs decision adds another chapter to a multi-year legal struggle involving Harvard, the federal government, and civil rights compliance. Although this ruling gives temporary relief to visa applicants, its long-term impact may hinge on future appeals or Supreme Court review.

Harvard has stated that its visa programs are essential to maintaining its educational and research missions. The university continues to argue that federal interference in its student and faculty composition harms its academic autonomy.

Meanwhile, supporters of the Trump policy contend that it is a legitimate way to ensure that public institutions that benefit from taxpayer funding uphold federal civil rights standards.

Case far from over

With Burroughs’ ruling standing in direct opposition to previously affirmed presidential powers, many experts anticipate a prolonged legal battle. Should the case move to the U.S. Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, it could clarify the scope of executive authority under immigration law once more.

This is not the first time Judge Burroughs’ interpretations have been reviewed. Her previous ruling supporting Harvard’s race-based admissions faced reversal by the Supreme Court, which found such practices unlawful under current civil rights statutes.

As of now, the case signals a continuing clash between federal enforcement and institutional independence, with immigration law serving as the latest battleground.