Hacker News Reader

Comment by achristmascarl | Hacker News Reader

I wonder what avenues there are for Harvard to challenge this; it looks like the mechanism the Trump Admin used was for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to cancel Harvard's Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) certification [0] which is managed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) [1].

Does ICE just have full discretion over SEVP? Can they do this to any school for whatever reason they want?

[0] https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/05/22/harvard-university-loses...

[1] https://www.dhs.gov/publication/dhsicepia-001-student-exchan...

View on HN

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1372, the SEVIS (Student and Exchange Visitor Information System) program requires schools to report data on international students including what DHS has been asking for.

Harvard may argue that DHS’s request was overly broad, lacked due process, or sought information beyond what the law permits.

8 CFR § 214.3(g) and § 214.4(b), which require schools to maintain and furnish records “as required by the Service,” including disciplinary actions and other conduct relevant to maintaining status.

8 CFR § 214.3(l)(2)(iii) allows for withdrawal of certification if a school fails to “provide requested documentation” to DHS.

Not to mention other overly broad immigration laws

But given the laws on the books, DHS has broad authority to take this action.

Not arguing one way or the other just laying out the facts. This could have happened under the prior administration if the law was applied

yep. the laws have been written to be broad... my best guess would be the best legal argument Harvard could claim would be that it construes the existing law as a bill of attainder (a law targetted at an individual or group of individuals called out by person -- versus called out by some category of actions -- that is judged without trial)

The actual statute provides the categories of information schools must provide about their students. It’s not a “whatever we happen to ask for” list. See 8 U.S.C. § 1372. Needless to say, “protest activity” is not included.

We do not know yet what Harvard did and did not respond to. All we have is their word. If they didn’t provide what was required after DHS demanded what was legally required to be provided then DHS is on solid legal ground. I can’t really defend not providing something that isn’t called out as part of the law though

No, we gave the SEVIS revocation letter demanding a handful of categories of information, one of which is “protest activity.” And they are already required under the statute to provide one category of information requested: “any disciplinary action taken by the institution against the alien as a result of the alien’s being convicted of a crime or, in the case of a participant in a designated exchange visitor program, any change in the alien’s participation as a result of the alien’s being convicted of a crime.”

My main point, though, was this: (1) the information required to maintain SEVIS program is statutorily defined, so the government doesn’t get to arbitrarily expand that and then punish a school for noncompliance; and (2) we know of at least one category requested information that they are not allowed to ask for and that implicates nothing other than the exercise of a student’s First Amendment rights.

My point is we don’t know if they actually provided all the info that is statutorily required and/or the government is saying within those statutory rules you still didn’t provide it so by law it’s revoked (for now). We only have statements from both sides.

Seeing as it’s private most likely won’t see it via FOIA

Nah, this one is going to federal court for sure. It’ll all come out. But part of the rules are also that schools must provide the relevant information within 30 days of the start of an alien’s academic term. There’s a whole system set up to handle this. The system is not, government, go ask for this set of information whenever you feel like it and if the school doesn’t hop to it immediately, you may suspend. It says that if a school does not provide the information within the relevant period before the term starts, it shall be suspended. There is no discretionary wiggle room for the government to be like, well, I don’t think you’re giving me enough, or you’re not being cooperative enough.

Actually, that interpretation isn’t quite correct. The 30-day reporting window you’re referring to applies to initial SEVIS data entry and student registration at the beginning of each term-things like confirming enrollment, course load, address, etc. That’s under 8 CFR § 214.3(g)(2) and (l)(2), which govern routine reporting timelines for active F-1/M-1 students.

But the April 16 DHS request to Harvard wasn't routine. It invoked 8 CFR § 214.3(g)(1), which covers ad hoc or investigative information requests by DHS. That section gives DHS broad power to request any time the records needed to assess a student’s compliance with immigration status.

Yes, I was being sloppy. Nevertheless, they can still only request that particular set of documents. And it’s not to assess a particular student’s status but the school’s compliance with the program requirements. (They can of course check individuals to make sure they’re also complying.) And just from the face of the letter to Harvard you can see they’re going way beyond the enumerated categories of information. Not to mention intermingling other SEVP-unrelated complaints (DEI! Antisemitism!) as to why Harvard is being targeted.

Our immigration system is so profoundly screwed up, and there is no doubt the executive agencies have wide powers to draw on, but they’re not even trying to provide a fig leaf of legality. It’s straight, “Comply or suffer!”

yes, there are clear problems with the scope and political context of the request. But the legal framework does give DHS room to request information tied to student status compliance, even outside of term-start reporting. The question now is how much of that request was actually lawful, and how much was political theater cloaked in regulatory form.

Rights don’t exist if you’re not a citizen. Isn’t that the whole crux of the debate? Glossing over that part, and as a former lawyer you should know better, means everything.

You’re wrong about that. It doesn’t say “Congress shall make no law, unless it targets non-citizens.” The First Amendment is a constraint on what governments may do.

Wish I had a way to privately get your digits. We accidentally seem to be knocking heads, and I bet you’re a great person to grab a coffee with. East coast?

Probably my now 70 hours of being awake, honestly, sorry if I’m being snippy. Deep South gang, rise up!

Governments may remove foreigners. Especially ones who come here to expand their internecine desert tribal rivalries that have no place in American communities.

And all we have is DHS' word that Harvard didn't provide what was required. This is simply ridiculous and everything needs to be easier for the public to double-check so we can call bullshit in the right direction.

Your bias is showing. Harvard could be wrong too.

This is all being argued in the court of public opinion now

Why would you ever believe the orange criminal and his gang members?

He is not a criminal nor do we have gang members. Show some respect

He is a criminal. He is a convicted felon.

Ah yes, the justice system only works when it favors your guy. But sure, 12 random jurors in New York just happened to all get their talking points from MSNBC. Totally not how trials work. Let us know how the appeal goes - third time's the charm, right?

I mean Biden was totally with it his entire term and didn’t have cancer either right?

The bayesean priors aren't the same for the two parties: One is a 30-time convicted criminal infamous for lying to get his way (tens of thousands of such lies on the record); The other is not.

If your first instinct isn't that the infamous known liar isn't the one lying here, then the bias here is yours.

Could Harvard be eligible for damages?

Given that Harvard’s own report supports this administration’s findings I am doubtful. Harvard’s own ASAIB report proved there is a prevalence of antisemitism and anti-Israel bias which includes verbal harassment, discriminatory comments hostile environments in academic settings pertaining to Israel and the Middle East, and exclusion of Jewish students from certain campus activities and organizations due to their perceived political affiliations

Link https://www.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/FINAL-Har...

Not sure how that’s relevant to pulling their foreign student credentials.

Point is their only option is to seek injunctive relief

> their only option is to seek injunctive relief

…why? Why does an internal Harvard report obviate damages for an unrelated illegal executive action?

I’m not arguing they have that claim. I’m just fairly certain this report doesn’t have anything to do with it.

I will explain.

Under 8 CFR § 214.3(a)(3) and § 214.4(a)(2)(ii), schools are required to maintain accurate records and comply with all SEVP-related responsibilities, which include ensuring that F-1 students are not engaged in activities that violate status or federal law. If DHS believes that international students were involved in threatening, discriminatory, or unlawful activity and the school either failed to document, disclose, or respond appropriately, that’s a direct compliance issue.

Harvard’s own ASAIB report admits that antisemitic conduct occurred-including exclusion of Jewish students, verbal harassment, and bias in classroom settings. If any of that involved foreign students-and Harvard didn’t report it or take disciplinary action-DHS can reasonably infer noncompliance with 214.3(g)(1) (required records) and failure to enforce visa conditions.

In fact, the ASAIB report might be evidence that Harvard knew about the issues and didn’t fully cooperate, justifying DHS’s conclusion that the university wasn’t acting in good faith.

They could argue it is an arbitrary or capricious action by the agency: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/706

If Harvard has maintained approval for international students, and Harvard's policies with respect to the approval haven't changed recently, then withdrawing approval would be arbitrary.

The actual letter explains they can regain status by ratting out their students.

It will quietly be done, although likely in a way that make it look as if Harvard hasn't.

Maybe, but I doubt it. Trump is not a mafia boss - time after time he showed that his words cannot be trusted. If Harvard makes a concession, there's no guarantee that Trump will "forgive" it.

Look how China is dealing with Trump. Trump announces tariffs, China returns Boeing planes, tariffs somehow comes down.

It's too bad Barron was too dumb to enroll at Harvard so his admission couldn't be rescinded

As a sovereign nation, China is in a somewhat different position than Harvard which is subject to US law.

> Trump is not a mafia boss - time after time he showed that his words cannot be trusted. If Harvard makes a concession, there's no guarantee that Trump will "forgive" it.

> Look how China is dealing with Trump. Trump announces tariffs, China returns Boeing planes, tariffs somehow comes down.

Doesn't this example make the opposite of your point?

The point I'm trying to make is: if Trump bullies you, and you make a concession, Trump will feel no obligations to pay you back and may bully you further. China played hardball (up to some degree - I'm sure there were backstage talks), and that apparently made Trump "respect" China more.

Penn should support Harvard and publicly revoke Trump's degree. Bullies only understand force.

What force does that possibly employ?

When you revoke the degree of a sitting president, that costs him...?

It costs him the only thing he cares about: his ego

I see two risks with your analysis. First, you generally underestimate a person if you try to distill his personality into one negative trait (or, for that matter, if you select a bunch of negative traits but assume no positive.)

Second, he's still the president, so I don't see what pull the Penn degree has vs. that.

Justice.

> The actual letter explains they can regain status by ratting out their students.

Trump's history has shown that if you cave into his demands, he doesn't leave you alone—instead he starts demanding even more, since he knows you'll fold.

Classic schoolyard bully behavior.

can you give an example?

> can you give an example?

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/politics-elec...

thanks!

Everything Columbia University did and what they got in return.

i was hoping for an example out of this particular domain (because i cant think of one), but it'll do.

Apple just got warned if they don’t bring manufacturing to USA they will be hit by company specific tariffs after Tim Cook bent the knee twice with personal pleas to lower tariffs for a bit and million dollar personal donations.

"million dollar personal donations" don't really address the underlying request though?

like I'm thinking trump saying "china needs to come to the table", so china comes to the table, and they get a 90 day stay on the 150% tariffs.

'ratting out' how? this implies they did something wrong

Doesn't matter anyway.

Pretty much a guarantee that Harvard will choose to stay the course. This is the quintessential organization that thinks along the lines of, "100 years from now Harvard will still be Harvard. And Trump will be one of the answers on a middle school history exam".

Expect escalation.

Ratting out in my mind means informing authorities in a way that something negative might be expected to happen to the subject.

For instance, I don't think smoking weed is wrong, but if I go tell an officer you have weed in your car, I have ratted you out despite nothing 'wrong' happening.

If you provide information to an actor when you have a clear indication that said actor will then take disproportionate action against the one on which you provide information, how is that not wrong?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com