In May, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that they are revoking Harvard’s certification under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), which allows universities to enrol international students. The administration described the move as a response to the alleged failures by Harvard to address antisemitism and comply with federal requests for student records. The policy bars the university from enrolling international students and forces current students to transfer to other universities.

Harvard then filed a suit accusing the Trump administration of unconstitutional retaliation for the university’s refusal to comply with demands to alter its governance, curriculum, and faculty ideology. The complaint mentioned that the ban violated the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act, asserting that it seriously violated Harvard’s rights and would not just harm the university but also jeopardise the future of its visa-holding students.

In a swift action, U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on May 23, stating that the ban would inflict serious and irreplaceable injury to the students and the University. In early June, a formal preliminary injunction on the policy was issued, and it ensured that Harvard’s international students could remain enrolled and new students could join for the upcoming academic year. This was done to ensure no student’s future was jeopardised due to the administration’s policy.

Harvard President Alan Garber welcomed the decision of the Federal Judge, stating, “This ruling is a critical step to protect the rights and opportunities of our international students and scholars, who are not just vital, but integral to the University’s mission and community.” 

The Trump administration, however, has not relented. DHS officials argued that enrolling international students is a “privilege, not a right,” and accused Harvard of fostering antisemitism and coordinating with foreign entities like the Chinese Communist Party—claims Harvard has denied, asserting compliance with legal reporting requirements for foreign donations.

The ruling is a temporary relief, as the case remains ongoing. Legal experts suggest it could escalate to higher courts, potentially reaching the U.S. Supreme Court, given the broader implications for academic freedom and immigration policy.

As the litigation continues, Harvard is making contingency plans to support its international students, who include notable figures like Princess Elisabeth of Belgium and Cleo Carney, daughter of Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. The university remains steadfast in defending its autonomy, with Garber asserting that the Government should not dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit, or which areas of inquiry they can pursue.

The outcome of this high-stakes legal battle will likely shape the future of international education in the U.S., with Harvard’s victory serving as a critical stand against efforts to curb academic independence. The implications of this ruling are profound, potentially altering the landscape of international education in the U.S.

The post Harvard University Wins Legal Battle Against Trump’s International Student Ban appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

About the controversial video, which led to her arrest

On May 14, 2025, Sharmistha- a fourth-year law student and a social media influencer with about 175,000 followers posted a controversial video criticising Bollywood celebrities, particularly Muslim actors, for their silence on “ Operation Sindoor” –  India’s military strike against terror camps in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir following the Pahalgam terror attack. The video was laced with abusive and communal remarks, including derogatory references to the Prophet Muhammad. This sparked immediate backlash online, including death threats and severe criticism towards Sharmistha. 

On May 15, after severe criticism, Sharmistha deleted the video and issued a public apology stating, “I do hereby tender my unconditional apology. Whatever was put are my personal feelings, and I never intentionally wanted to hurt anybody, so if anybody is hurt, I’m sorry for the same.” Despite her apology, a complaint was filed by Wajahat Khan, general secretary of the Kolkata-based Rashidi Foundation, at the Garden Reach Police Station in Kolkata, accusing Panoli of promoting communal hatred and insulting religious beliefs. The case was registered under section 196(1) (a)- promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste, or community, Section 299- deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class of citizens, Section 352-  intentional insult with the intent to provoke a breach of peace, Section 353(1)(c)- statements that incite public mischief, of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. And on May 30, Sharmistha was apprehended in Gurugram, Haryana, and the West Bengal Police brought her to Kolkata on transit remand.

Legal Battle and Bail

Initially, Sharmistha was denied bail on June 3 by Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, who stated, “Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you will go on to hurt others.” However, on June 5, Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury granted interim bail on a ₹10,000 bond, considering Panoli’s age, status as a law student, and willingness to cooperate with the investigation. The court further ordered police protection for Panoli due to reported death and rape threats, and directed authorities to merge all related FIRs into a single case in Kolkata to streamline the investigation. 

While it is expected that the court will give a landmark judgement in this case deciding the scope of free speech used by influencers and celebrities on social media platforms, the question here arises – what about the use of free speech by people giving rape and death threats openly on social media platforms? What about an ordinary man spreading communal hatred on social media through comments? Is reporting the comment and getting it deleted enough? Can the freedom of speech supersede the right to a dignified life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution?

The post Sharmistha Panoli’s Case: Question on Free Speech appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.