Trump’s administration is already facing major legal challenges when trying to freeze billions of grants to Harvard University, one brought by the school itself and the other by the Harvard Unit of the American University Professor Association. Similarly, the president’s desire to cancel the tax -free status of school has not been nowhere to date. It seems like a non -communicative – or just desperate – Trump’s administration has now tried a new path to avenge the oldest American university: to deny thousands of international students to participate. However, like those other actions, this one is already correctly facing great resistance in the courts.
Before the ink was not even dry, the US County Judge Allison Burroughs Massachusetts issued a temporary restraint order to prevent the university’s ability to educate international students, preventing the order from coming into force. Although constitutional issues related to the actions of the administration are important and clear, it may be resolved on less difficult issues, simply because the administration has not complied with the laws necessary to take action it wants to take.
As with another latest ruling, which banned the administration to take place after the activities of the law firm Perkins Cie, for which the administration is not favorable, the latest administration attack on Harvard is based on obvious “anti -American” values. As with the two newest resolutions that banned the administration to go after the law firm Perkins Coie, and the next on Friday, it issued permanently, which was permanently granted the administration to punish the Jenner & Block law firm, the latest administrative attack on Harvard is based on alleged Values of the University. Actions, like repercussions against firms, violate the first amendment to the US Constitution.
However, Burroughs and other courts who can review this action do not even need to get into deeper constitutional issues. The American jurisprudence director is that when a court can resolve the case without reaching constitutional issues, it should do so. And while the university’s constitutional claims are strong, the courts will have many grounds to avoid these issues here.
In fact, the efforts of the Homeland Security Department in this way to punish Harvard was such a ham hand that the alleged abolition of the university’s ability to educate international students did not comply with the laws and procedures required by the administration if it would like to take such action.
Such legal and procedural requirements are quite clear. For example, the administration must notify the school about how the university clearly violates the rules governing the international visa program, and it must have reasonable rather than a pretextual reasons to do so. The university then has the opportunity to challenge those suspicions at several administrative review levels and is likely to be in court if an administrative review decision against university.
The fact remains that the administration did not comply with these legal and procedural protection measures regulating the international student visa program. In addition, by stopping this program, as it is related to Harvard without any process, the DHS Secretary Kristi Noem also violated the Federal Administrative Procedure Act, the Federal Law for a reasonable decision and procedural regularity, to actions of the Federal Agency.
This procedural failure means that the more difficult constitutional questions about whether the actions of the administration violate the university’s free language or whether the rights of the procedures are likely to be left for the next day. Similar mistakes occurred under the first Presidency of Trump. Attempts by this administration to abolish the delayed action on the arrival program of the children and to add a question of citizenship to the US Census, among other things, were successfully disputed by APA.
The Burroughs Provisional Construction Order against the Administration’s Policy was issued shortly after Harvard filed a claim to suspend it. The quick solution reflects the serious damage that this policy will do for thousands of students and Harvard’s education and scientific mission. Giving this is also an indirect recognition that the university is likely to be able to adopt laws of the main challenge.
Here, Judge Burroughs is likely to go along the route of Judges Berly Howell and John Bates, who permanently demanded the administration’s efforts to punish Perkins Coie and Jenner & Block, a language and behavior that met with the president’s disapproval. Those rulings are likely to repeat this decision, but not for the same reasons. Here, the administration’s inability to follow even the main administrative steps needed to take the desired actions is likely to condemn the effort.
This does not mean that Trump’s administration cannot further tilt the windmills. But Harvard will still hold his constitutional-challenge cards in his hands. If she has to play them at some point, it will also have a strong case.
This article was originally published in msnbc.com