Can MIT and Harvard Sue Trump for Deporting International Students by Not Offering Online Education?
Under which law can prestigious institutions like MIT and Harvard sue the Trump administration for deporting international students who were denied access to online education? This article delves into a critical legal issue that has sparked debate and litigation between the universities and the government. We will explore the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the specific claims made by MIT and Harvard in their lawsuit.
The Importance of APA in Legal Proceedings
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is a federal law that governs the manner in which government agencies formulate, amend, or enforce regulations. When it comes to the litigation by MIT and Harvard, this law is the crux of their case. The APA provides universities with the legal standing to sue the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) over agency actions, specifically the decision to not offer online education to international students.
Challenges Faced by MIT and Harvard
MIT and Harvard are claiming that the DHS's decision to not offer online education to international students was arbitrary and capricious, failing to comply with the procedural requirements set forth in the APA. According to the complaint, the decision was not evaluated for its impact, which is contrary to the APA's requirements.
The universities argue that this action disrupts their settled expectations and the reliance interest they have in maintaining the current status quo. The abrupt change in policy without due process has created significant uncertainty and disruption for university administrations and students.
Legal Arguments and Procedural Missteps
MIT and Harvard have outlined several key arguments in their case:
Rational Basis for the Decision: The universities claim that the DHS has not provided a sufficient rationale for changing their policies abruptly. This is particularly important as the decision affects a significant number of international students, many of whom have already been approved and admitted to the United States on student visas. Notice and Comment Process: Another critical point is that the APA mandates a "notice and comment" process for significant changes in regulations. The DHS failed to follow this process, which is a clear violation of procedural requirements. Reliance Interest: The universities argue that they have a legitimate reliance interest in the current policies and procedures. Major changes without adequate notice can cause significant disruption to academic plans and personal lives of students and university staff.Previous Legal Precedents
The case draws similarities to the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) case, where the plaintiffs were successful in challenging a similar abrupt policy change. The precedent set by the DACA case indicates that a judgment against administrative actions alone can compel the government to revisit and potentially reverse its decisions.
Challenges Ahead
The legal battle between MIT, Harvard, and the DHS is far from over. While the universities have a strong case based on the APA and previous legal precedents, the DHS may present a strong defense. One potential defense is the argument that the online education decision was based on public interest and the need to ensure in-person education. However, this argument may not hold water given the lack of a compelling rationale provided by the DHS.
Stay tuned as this case unfolds, as it could have significant implications for future legal battles involving higher education and student rights.
Conclusion
The lawsuit by MIT and Harvard against the Trump administration is a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over online education and student rights. The APA serves as the legal framework for this case, and the universities are making a strong case against the abrupt policy change. As the legal proceedings continue, the outcome could set a precedent for future actions by governmental agencies.