Harvard obtains injunction blocking ban on international students
3:30 p.m., May 24, 2025
On May 22, 2025, the Secretary of Homeland Security notified Harvard that its Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification was summarily revoked, failing to follow established regulatory procedures. The next day, Harvard filed a comprehensive lawsuit challenging the revocation and obtained a temporary restraining order blocking the revocation. As Harvard stated in its legal brief:
"The government’s revocation of Harvard’s certification was not a product of the ordinary review process set out in detailed regulations that define the limited circumstances under which a school’s certification may be revoked and put a premium on the due process rights of institutions and students. On its face, the revocation is part of the government’s broader effort to retaliate against Harvard for its refusal to surrender its academic independence. In response to the government’s disagreement with the perceived viewpoints of Harvard, its faculty, and its students, the government issued a series of demands requiring Harvard to submit to government oversight of the faculty it hires, the students it admits, and the courses it teaches. When Harvard declined, the Administration unleashed the full power of the federal government, freezing billions in federal grants, proposing to eliminate Harvard’s tax-exempt status, opening multiple federal investigations, and—most relevant here—threatening to terminate Harvard’s participation in the F-1 and J-1 visa programs.
"Yesterday, the government made good on that threat—and it did so via a letter that makes plain that DHS is not even pretending to follow its own regulations, either as to process or as to substance. Instead, DHS all but announced that the revocation is blatantly in retaliation for Harvard’s exercise of its academic freedom."
Temecula Valley Unified School District's Critical Race Theory ban enjoined by California Court
3:30 p.m., May 24, 2025
On May 19, 2025, the California Court of Appeal found Temecula Valley Unified School District's Critical Race Theory ban unconstitutional. By resolution, Temecula Valley USD prohibits District educators from using CRT “as a source to guide how topics related to race will be taught.” The Resolution prohibits five enumerated elements of (CRT) and eight enumerated doctrines derived from CRT. In its decision, the appellate court found that "the Resolution is unconstitutionally vague on its face because it employs ambiguous language, lacks definitions, is unclear in scope, is seemingly irreconcilable with state-mandated educational requirements, and contains no enforcement guidelines." It directed the lower court to issue a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the Resolution.
Court blocks dismantling of U.S. Department of Education
12:30 p.m., May 22, 2025
On May 22, 2025, a federal district court issued a preliminary injunction blocking the dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education. For more information on the lawsuit, see below Legal Update: California sues to block dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education (March 13, 2025, 1:30 p.m.).
Guidance on responding to immigration concerns from students
12:30 p.m., May 15, 2025
Widespread immigration enforcement by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has raised legitimate alarm among our students. It is important that members of the College community provide accurate information to those facing immigration enforcement. Immigration law is complex, and questions should be referred to experts on campus: international students should be referred to the International Education Center and other students to the Dream Program or Dream Resource Center.
To understand the complexities of immigration law, the National Immigration Law Center has created a comprehensive Know Your Rights guide (click here for a Spanish-language version). It is important to recognize that individualized advice by knowledgeable experts is needed. How an immigrant with lawful documentation should respond may be different for someone without documentation. Giving the wrong advice could result in deportation.
Internal ICE memo outlines expanded authority to terminate F-1 student status
4:30 p.m., May 2, 2025
After losing numerous court challenges, the Trump administration announced in court on April 25, 2025, that it was restoring F-1 student terminations in SEVIS (Student Exchange and Visitor Information System). Although SEVIS terminations were restored, an internal ICE memorandum issued on April 28, 2025, seeks to expand federal authority to terminate F-1 students' ability to study in the United States. In chilling language, the memorandum outlined the power of the State Department to terminate student visas, noting that "State can consider derogatory information provided by ICE and other U.S. law enforcement agencies in its assessment of whether visa revocation is appropriate for an alien." There is no requirement that the derogatory information be truthful. Future litigation is likely if this internal memorandum is enforced.
California issues report on unlawful conditions at ICE detention facilities in the state
12:30 p.m., May 1, 2025
California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a report showing the alarming conditions of immigration detention facilities in the state. The facilities are plagued with problems ranging from lack of medical care to excessive use of force. The full report can be read here. As Bonta stated in releasing the report:
“California has a responsibility to understand the conditions in which all our residents live, including people who are detained at immigration detention facilities. My office’s review of facilities in California shows that issues previously identified have persisted, while new findings make clear that these facilities need significant improvements to fall in compliance with ICE’s own detention standards. California’s facility reviews remain especially critical in light of efforts by the Trump Administration to both eliminate oversight of conditions at immigration detention facilities and increase its inhumane campaign of mass immigration enforcement, potentially exacerbating critical issues already present in these facilities by packing them with more people.”
Harvard sues over unlawful demands by Trump Administration
12:00 p.m., April 24, 2025
On April 21, 2025, Harvard launched a sweeping lawsuit against federal officials to block efforts to cut off billions of dollars to "the Nation's oldest institution of higher learning." As the complaint notes, "federal funding has enabled researchers at Harvard to develop novel drugs to fight Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases, engineer nanofibers to protect servicemembers and first responders, support American astronauts in space, and design an artificial intelligence system that can be used to diagnose and treat cancer." You can read the full complaint and supporting documents here.
Through a variety of executive actions, the Trump administrations seeks to compel institutions of higher education to bow in the face of unlawful demands. Rather than doing so, Harvard is fighting back. As its lawsuit states:
"[The government's] actions threaten Harvard’s academic independence and place at risk critical lifesaving and pathbreaking research that occurs on its campus. And they are part of a broader effort by the Government to punish Harvard for protecting its constitutional rights. In the days since Harvard rejected the Government’s unconstitutional demands, the Government has launched multiple investigations and other actions against Harvard. Although the Government has indicated that it has made several attempts to contact the University, at no time has it rescinded the draconian demands laid out in the April 11 Letter. Indeed, the Government has only ratcheted up cuts to funding, investigations, and threats that will hurt students from every state in the country and around the world, as well as research that improves the lives of millions of Americans."
International students challenge termination of F-1 student status in numerous court cases
5:00 p.m., April 20, 2025
In federal courts across the country, international students are fighting the arbitrary terminations of F-1 student status. An example is the lawsuit filed by 133 international students in Georgia resulting in a Temporary Restraining Order on April 18, 2025. In Jane Doe 1 v. Bondi, the federal court ruled that students had shown likelihood of success in their assertions that termination of their F-1 student status was unlawful. The court's decision provides a summary of the legal issues involved and why the Trump administration's action is contrary to law. The students' claims were summarized by the court as follows:
Plaintiffs claim that Defendants’ termination of their F-1 student status under the SEVIS system was unlawful for multiple reasons. First, it constitutes agency action not in accordance with law and in excess of statutory authority under the Administrative Procedure Act (Count 1); second, it violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution (Count 2); third, it violates the APA by infringing upon constitutional rights protected by the Fifth Amendment (Count 3); and fourth, it is arbitrary and capricious under administrative law (Count 4).
California Attorney General challenges termination of student visas, calling for an end to Trump's "Ideological Deportation Policy"
3:00 p.m., April 11, 2025
With student visas being cancelled across the country, including 10 so far at Santa Monica College, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, along with his counterparts in other states, filed a friend of the court brief in Massachusetts federal court on April 11, 2025, calling for an end to the administration's "Ideological Deportation Policy." In filing the brief, California's Attorney General stated:
“Students across the country are being aggressively targeted without notice and for no clear reason beyond the President’s political agenda, creating a culture of fear and disrupting our institutions of higher education. The unjustified and unconstitutional revocation of student visas for expressing their opinions sends a stunning message to campuses across the nation: fall in line or face deportation. I urge the court to put a swift stop to this policy before it can do any further damage.”
Court rules Executive Order can not "override First Amendment protections"
4:30 p.m., March 24, 2025
In response to President Trump's January 2025 executive order entitled "Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government," the Texas A&M Board of Regents adopted a resolution banning all drag shows on university property. With its approved "Draggieland" special event suddenly cancelled, the Texas A&M Queer Empowerment Council filed a first amendment lawsuit in federal court. On March 24, 2025, three days before the scheduled show, United States District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal issued a preliminary injunction against the ban. In a well-reasoned decision, the court found that "to ban the performance from taking place on campus because it offends some members of the campus community is precisely what the First Amendment prohibits," finding that Trump's executive order provided no support for the ban. It observed the importance of free speech rights on campus:
“In recent years, the commitment to free speech on campuses has been both challenging and challenged. There have been efforts from all sides of the political spectrum to disrupt or prevent students, faculty, and others from expressing opinions and speech that are deemed, or actually are, offensive or wrong. But the law requires the recognition and application of speech rights and guardrails that preserve and protect all our treasured First Amendment rights.”
Nationwide preliminary injunction issued against ban on military service by transgender people
7:30 p.m., March 18, 2025; Update 7:14 p.m., May 6, 2025
On May 6, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling in Shilling v. Trump, allowing Trump’s transgender military ban to take effect while multiple legal challenges move forward. According to Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, “Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a devastating blow to transgender service members who have demonstrated their capabilities and commitment to our nation’s defense.”
On March 18, 2025, U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes held that President Trump's recent ban on military service by transgender people violates the Constitutional guarantee of equal protection because it discriminates based on a person’s transgender status and sex, and because “it is soaked in animus.” Her lengthy decision traces the history of honorable service by transgender service members, a fact the government did not dispute. She closed her decision thanking those who have served our country:
The Court knows that this opinion will lead to heated public debate and appeals. In a healthy democracy, both are positive outcomes. We should all agree, however, that every person who has answered the call to serve deserves our gratitude and respect. For, as Elmer Davis observed, “[t]his nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave.”
Trump's ban on transgender service members is just one of many attacks on transgender people. Other litigation challenging them is pending in the federal courts.
Class action lawsuit documents harm caused by the dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights
7:00 p.m., March 18, 2025
Following the day after California joined other states in seeking to block the Trump administration’s dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education, the National Center for Youth Law (NCYL) filed a federal class action lawsuit seeking to reverse the decimation of the Office for Civil Rights (OCR). Filed in the federal district court for the District of Columbia, the lawsuit documents the significant erosion of protections for students resulting from the action. In filing the lawsuit, NCYL stated:
"The lawsuit details how OCR is perverting its core function of supporting all students who face discrimination and/or harassment by pausing investigations into discrimination on the basis of race and sex and intersectional discrimination; incapacitating OCR by gutting its staff; and obstructing families’ access to OCR’s complaint and investigation process. The suit comes in the same week Secretary McMahon laid off hundreds of OCR staff, and provided no information or apparent plan for how student and family rights will be protected. The combination of these actions affect children and disrupt the entire ecosystem designed to provide the evidence base, technical assistance and enforcement needed to assure every child learns.. As explained in the lawsuit, OCR’s actions violate the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause and the federal Administrative Procedure Act."
California sues to block dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education
1:30 p.m., March 13, 2025
On March 13, 2025, California joined other states in filing a federal court complaint to block the Trump administration’s dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education. The complaint provides a detailed summary of the important work performed by the U.S. Department of Education along with the legal reasons why the executive branch is violating the Constitution and laws of the United States.
In filing the lawsuit, California Attorney General Rob Bonta stated:
“The Trump Administration’s attempt to gut the Department of Education’s workforce is another step in its end goal of shuttering the department for good. In doing so, the Trump Administration ignores the invaluable role the Department of Education plays in ensuring the health, safety, and education of our children — administering programs that assist children from low-income families, providing vocational training, and enforcing anti-discrimination laws, among countless other responsibilities fundamental to our educational system. Dismantling the Department of Education from within would have catastrophic consequences — and like many of the Trump Administration’s actions since taking office, is blatantly illegal. It shouldn’t be too much to ask for a President to follow the law, but for the eighth time in as many weeks, we’ll see him in court.”
Santa Monica College among 60 institutions receiving March 10, 2025 letter from Office for Civil Rights
5:30 p.m., March 12, 2025
As widely reported in the media, Santa Monica College was among 60 institutions that received a letter from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights reminding it of obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. In response to three investigations launched by the Office for Civil Rights, the College has demonstrated its full compliance with the law. The letter received by the College contains no specific concerns about any action by the College or new information on the three ongoing investigations. The letter is being shared with the College community since it is a matter of public record.
California Attorney General issues guidance to educational institutions in response to "Dear Colleague" letter
3:30 p.m., March 5, 2025
On March 5, 2025, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, as a part of a multistate coalition, issued guidance to educational institutions in response to the U.S. Department of Education's February 14 "Dear Colleague" letter. As Attorney General Bonta states:
"Educational institutions should continue to foster diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility among their student bodies. Longstanding legal precedent has established that educational institutions may take steps to build student bodies that are meaningfully diverse across numerous dimensions, like geography, socioeconomic status, race, and sexual orientation and gender identity, among others. Nothing in the Dear Colleague letter changes existing law and well-established legal principles that encourage – and even require – schools to promote educational opportunity for students of all backgrounds"
Executive Order declaring English as the official language of the United States has no impact on the College
2:30 p.m., March 2, 2025
On March 1, 2025, a presidential executive order declared English as the official language of the United States. This executive order will have no impact on the College. In 1986, the voters of California added Article 3, Section 6 to the California Constitution declaring "English as the Official Language of California." We have lived with this constitutional provision for decades without any adverse impact on College operations. However, the executive order may adversely impact service levels if federal agencies no longer provide language assistance to the public.
Title VI guidance in light of the "Dear Colleague" letter
4:30 p.m., February 26, 2025
The “Dear Colleague” letter issued by the Department of Education on Valentine's Day generated controversy and concern. On February 25, 2025, the American Federation of Teachers and other organizations filed a federal court complaint challenging the letter's "unprecedented weaponization and undermining of civil rights laws."
While this and other litigation is ongoing, another "Dear Colleague" letter issued in 2023 provides excellent guidance on ensuring Title VI compliance. Written by an outstanding lawyer serving as Assistant Secretary of Civil Rights and entitled "Race and School Programming," the letter provides numerous examples of programming that is legal and programming that is not. As the letter concluded:
"OCR recognizes that many schools, colleges, and universities offer spaces and activities for students and others to share ideas, receive support, and discuss common experiences in order to cultivate inclusive communities that feel welcoming to students from populations that have traditionally been underserved. This guidance clarifies that a school-sponsored or recognized group or program with a special emphasis on race, such as a student club or mentorship opportunity, that is open to all students, typically would not violate Title VI simply because of its race-related theme. Extracurricular activities and spaces that are open to all students regardless of race and do not create a racially hostile environment will generally not raise concerns under Title VI, regardless of whether such activities or spaces have a race-related theme."
U.S. Department of Education seeks to undermine diversity, equity, and inclusion programs
1:15 p.m., February 18, 2025
On February 14, 2025, the U.S. Department of Education issued a “Dear Colleague” letter that has been widely reported as threatening federal funding for educational institutions with diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. Santa Monica College’s DEI efforts are in compliance with both federal and state law and no action is required in response to the letter. As the letter plainly states: “This guidance does not have the force and effect of law and does not bind the public or create new legal standards.” Indeed, many of the positions taken in the letter are unsupported by legal precedent. As PEN America stated in response:
"The administration’s outrageous “Dear Colleague” letter seeks to declare it a civil rights violation for educational institutions to engage in any diversity-related programming or to promote any diversity-related ideas – potentially including everything from a panel on the Civil Rights Movement to a Lunar New Year celebration. This declaration has no basis in law and is an affront to the freedom of speech and ideas in educational settings. It represents yet another twisting of civil rights law in an effort to demand ideological conformity by schools and universities and to do away with critical inquiry about race and identity." (PEN America's Press Statement)
Guidance concerning diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility employment initiatives
4:15 p.m., February 13, 2025
On February 13, 2025, the Attorneys General of Massachusetts, Illinois, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont issued guidance to help businesses, nonprofits, and other organizations navigate the Trump administration’s ant-DEI executive orders. Entitled Multi-State Guidance Concerning Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Employment Initiatives, the document states:
“Importantly, diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility best practices are not illegal, and the federal government does not have the legal authority to issue an executive order that prohibits otherwise lawful activities in the private sector or mandates the wholesale removal of these policies and practices within private organizations, including those that receive federal contracts and grants.”
The legality of sanctuary laws
10:09 a.m., February 13, 2025
The Trump Administration has filed lawsuits against Illinois and New York seeking to declare state laws barring cooperation with immigration authorities invalid under the Supremacy Clause.
UCLA School of Law Professor Ahilan Arulanantham has written about the legality of sanctuary law in an article entitled “What Just Happened: Sanctuary Policies and the DOJ Memo’s Empty Threat of Criminal Liability.” In it, he concludes that laws like the California Values Act are legal:
"So are sanctuary laws illegal? Under current law, the answer is clearly “no,” at least as to the kinds of non-cooperation provisions found in typical sanctuary laws like California’s—rules that limit the gathering of immigration-related information, refuse compliance with federal detainer requests, and prohibit most other common forms of cooperation with federal immigration enforcement."
Santa Monica College’s noncooperation with federal immigration enforcement as required by the California Values Act should withstand legal scrutiny.