Justice Department Lawyer Tiberius Davis Tells Judge Allison D. Burroughs Trump Likely to Reissue Harvard International Student Ban

A Justice Department lawyer Tiberius Davis told the First Circuit on October 6, 2026, that President Donald Trump would likely issue a new proclamation restricting Harvard’s international students if a federal injunction blocking the earlier policy is lifted.

Davis said unidentified White House officials had told him a replacement was likely. He also acknowledged he could not bind the president, who could change his position.

The original proclamation suspended entry for international students seeking to study at Harvard. It covered roughly June through December 2025 and expired in December 2025.

The dispute is now before an appeals panel. Its questions reached beyond the expired measure.

The appeals panel questioned what it could still decide

Judge Allison D. Burroughs of the District of Massachusetts blocked the policy from taking effect. The administration appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

The panel includes Senior Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson and Judges William J. Kayatta Jr. and Joshua D. Dunlap. Thompson questioned whether the case remained justiciable after the proclamation expired.

He asked what relief the court could grant when “the … proclamation is dead.” The question put the focus on whether a dispute over a policy that no longer operates can still be decided by the court.

Both sides argued that the case remains live because the administration could issue another proclamation aimed specifically at Harvard. The possibility of another measure gave the panel a continuing dispute to consider, even though the original one had expired.

Davis defended the president’s power to restrict entry

Davis argued that the president acted within his authority to regulate entry into the United States. He described the proclamation as facially neutral because it controlled the admission of foreign nationals rather than directly regulating Harvard.

He also said Burroughs applied the wrong legal test. In his argument, the injunction intruded on presidential authority over immigration, foreign affairs and national-security matters.

The administration had not issued a replacement proclamation because the injunction would make enforcement difficult or impossible, Davis said. If the injunction is vacated or the government prevails on appeal, he indicated Trump may issue a substantially similar measure.

The hearing also left open a possible revision that would allow Israeli students to enroll while excluding other foreign students. That possibility was raised as the court considered what a future Harvard-specific restriction might look like.

Harvard says the measure punished the university

Harvard attorney Paul Clement argued that the administration used immigration and national-security powers to retaliate after the university rejected government demands concerning its governance, curriculum, faculty and students.

Clement characterized the policy as unprecedented. He warned that upholding it could establish a precedent allowing the executive branch to decide which U.S. institutions may receive international students’ visas.

He also argued that affirming the injunction would prevent another proclamation directed at Harvard. The university’s position therefore addresses both the first policy and the prospect of a replacement.

Students remain enrolled as the court considers the appeal

Harvard’s international students have continued studying because the original proclamation expired and Burroughs’s injunction blocked its implementation. No replacement ban had taken effect as of the October 6 hearing.

The university reported that international students made up 27% of its student body in the preceding academic year. That share underscores the reach a Harvard-specific entry restriction could have across the campus community.

A new proclamation would likely bring further litigation over presidential authority, constitutional limits and statutory immigration powers. Courts could also be asked whether they can block a measure aimed at the admission of students to one particular university.

The First Circuit’s ruling could shape the scope of executive power over institution-specific restrictions on international students, beyond the dispute involving Harvard.