The judge extends the Trump prohibition block that prohibits Harvard students from entering us

A temporary restriction order on President Donald Trump, which prohibits foreign students from Harvard University from entering the US, will remain in force until next Monday, while a federal judge considers arguments made for a preliminary judicial order.

The temporary block had to expire Thursday before being extended on Monday by the Judge of the US District Court. Allison Burroughs.

Harvard lawyers argued that Trump’s proclamation violates their rights of the first amendment and is outside the authority of the Executive Power. List the actions taken by the Government against Harvard in recent weeks, lawyer Ian Gershengorn argued at a judicial hearing on Monday in Boston that the measure was reprisals and discrimination of the point of view against the institution.

Gershengorn argued that the president is not restricting the entrance, but limits what he does and with whom he associates after entering. The allowed way to classify a class of aliens is based on the character of the alien, he argued.

The government retreated, arguing that the administration does not “trust” Harvard and that it did not monitor the “aliens” that brought to the United States that the government said that bringing foreigners is a privilege, not a right, according to Tiberius Davis, lawyer of the assistant attorney general.

“We do not trust Harvard for veterinarians, hosts, monitoring or discipline,” Davis argued. Davis also raised concerns about Harvard’s “foreign tangles” with the Chinese government and said he did not provide sufficient information to the government about foreign students, what Harvard has denied.

Harvard University filed the lawsuit against the Government after the Secretary of the United States Department of National Security, Kristi Noem, announced that he was canceling the certification of the Student and Exchange Visitors Program of Harvard, which would prohibit school from registering foreign students.

Later, the demand was amended to include the proclamation and Harvard moved to request a second block to Trump’s proclamation. That would have entered into force for at least six months before it was blocked by Burroughs.

The judge questioned the arguments made by the Government about his concerns about Harvard that motivated the proclamation.

“I can’t imagine that anything you just described is applied only to Harvard,” Burroughs said.

Davis argued that the government is free to investigate other institutions and said that “many of these other universities are willing to” do more to address problems on campus. “

Davis also argued that different government agencies chose to finish subsidies with Harvard because they believed that the institution was not following the law, saying that the movement was not retaliation either. Davis also said that Harvard is not pointing out with subsidy terminations because other institutions have suffered the same.

The government argued that it is not highlighting Harvard, but that other institutions have been more willing to take measures to address problems on campus, while Harvard has not done so, Davis said.

“There is a lack of evidence of retaliation here,” Davis said in court.

Burroughs said that if the point is to eliminate anti -Semitism: “Why aren’t we leaving in people from Israel?”

Davis argued that anti -Semitism was only part of the issue, along with foreign tangles and not providing sufficient information to the government. Due to his other behavior on the campus and his lack of attention “we do not trust them,” Davis said.

“They don’t have to stop everyone who is accelerating. Frankly they can’t do that,” Davis said.

When delaying the arguments that he did not monitor his students, Harvard said it is the government’s responsibility for students that are allowed to the country.

“The State Department conducts the investigation into its visa process,” Gershengorn said.

At a time of Monday’s hearing, the judge asked Harvard’s lawyers why he did not appoint the president in his lawsuit, asking if he needed to appear in this case.

Gershengorn said he sued people who have the task of implementing proclamation.

Gershengorn argued that the use of Trump of the proclamation to block the entry of foreign students of Harvard is a “vast new authority to regulate the domestic behavior of national institutions”, a deviation of how this proclamation has been used in the past. Gershengorn said it has been used to block the entry of individuals or nationals of a country that “has done something wrong.”

The question is not whether the action is legal or not, Gershengorn argued. If legal action is taken as an action motivated by the first amendment, it is no longer legal, he added.

Gershengorn said that what Harvard has suffered in the last two months is probably the most “irregular” and “inadequate” action that any institution has suffered.

Harvard rejected the claims that there is a generalized violence on the campus, saying that the history quoted by the Government identified two incidents of violence based on religion. The government is “throwing things into the wall to see what you stick,” Gershengorn said.

Harvard has claimed that the administration is in a “reprisal campaign” against school. After Harvard refused to meet the demands made by the Trump administration, the Administration responded by freezing more than $ 2.2 billion in subsidies and $ 60 million in contracts to the school.

In April, Harvard filed a separate demand on financing.