Thank you Judge Burroughs. Do read it all -- but here's a bit:
. . .[Team Tangerine 2.0's] reading of the record is so selective as to border on absurd. Between the April 11 Letter and the Proclamation, there were very few days where the Administration did not attack Harvard in some form or another, including six Truth Social posts from the President himself, [Am. Compl. ¶¶ 122, 123, 132, 147, 182, 183];12 several actual or threatened grant and funding freezes, [id. ¶¶ 120, 127, 134, 148, 182]; several iterations of the Administration’s attempts to limit Harvard’s ability to host international students and visitors. . . . Secretary Noem sent a records request about SEVP that stated that “[f]ailure to comply with this Records Request will be treated as a voluntary withdrawal”), 158 (May 22 SEVP Revocation Letter), 188 (May 28 SEVP NOIW), 195–201 (State Department pilot vetting program targeting Harvard visitors)]; other investigation initiations, [id. ¶ 133 (investigation into Harvard’s employment practices)]; and numerous other statements by President Trump and other officials in the Administration, as detailed supra. Defendants’ countervailing argument that these assaults cannot constitute retaliation as they came from different parties and are therefore not attributable to any one source is equally puzzling, because that fact only serves to reinforce that the Administration has made a full court press against Harvard on many different fronts. . . .
[T]he [undisputed] timeline here leaves little room for doubt regarding the causal connection and supports Harvard’s contention that the Proclamation was intended both to punish Harvard and, separately, to be an end run around this Court’s prior TRO and subsequent preliminary injunction proceedings. Harvard filed its initial complaint and TRO motion on May 23, 2025. [ECF Nos. 1, 4]. The President criticized Harvard on Truth Social several times, including a reference to the litigation, on May 26. [Am. Comp. ¶¶ 182–83]. The parties had a status conference on May 27. [ECF No. 32]. DHS issued its official NOIW to Harvard on May 28. [ECF No. 49]. That same day, the President convened government officials from “nearly a dozen agencies” to brainstorm additional actions the Administration could take against Harvard. [ECF No. 54-3 at 4]. The next day, May 29, at the hearing on Harvard’s preliminary injunction, the parties agreed to submit a joint proposed injunction against the SEVP Revocation Letter pending the NOIW proceedings. [ECF Nos. 50, 52]. The Proclamation was issued on June 4, one week after the brainstorming session and the evening before the parties’ joint preliminary injunction proposal on the SEVP issue was due to be filed. . . .
“One of the most egregious types of First Amendment violations is viewpoint-based discrimination. . . . Government actors may not discriminate against speakers based on viewpoint.” Holloman ex rel. Holloman v. Harland, 370 F.3d 1252, 1279–80 (11th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). Nor may they “single[] out a subset of messages for disfavor based on the views expressed,” Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. 218, 248 (2017) (Kennedy, J., concurring), or “punish[] . . . organizations and their members merely because of their political beliefs and utterances,” Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 143 (1951) (Black, J., concurring). . . .
As Vullo makes clear, President Trump and his advisers are free to make statements like these criticizing Harvard for its perceived political viewpoints. “What [they] cannot do, however, is use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.” Vullo, 602 U.S. at 188. And the evidence suggests they were doing precisely that, including with regard to the Proclamation. . . .
Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED.
Now you know. Onward, to the morning -- and southerly climes. Smile.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment