On the morning of Friday, May 23, Harvard filed a 72-page complaint and a 59-page motion for a temporary restraining order against the Department of Homeland Security and other officials. There were nearly thirty exhibits.
Shortly after the case was filed, the case was assigned to Judge Allison D. Burroughs. (She presided over the Harvard affirmative action trial). And almost immediately she granted an Ex Parte TRO.
Accordingly, Defendants, their agents, and anyone acting in concert or participation with Defendants are hereby enjoined from: A. Implementing, instituting, maintaining, or giving effect to the revocation of Plaintiff's SEVP certification; B. Giving any force or effect to the Department of Homeland Security's May 22, 2025 Revocation Notice.
ECF does not have time stamps, but the case could not have been on her docket for more than a few hours.
I have a serious question: did Judge Burroughs even read the 72-page complaint and 59-page motion for a TRO? What about all of the pages of exhibits? Did she have any time to reflect upon it or consider countervailing arguments?
I think of Judge Hendrix. The ACLU expected him to resolve a complex case in the span of hours. The judge, prudently, said that it was not possible to move that quickly. But the Supreme Court in A.A.R.P indicated that lower court judges should just reflexively enter ex parte TROs to preserve the status quo. This mode of judging is reckless, but the Supreme Court has given it a green light.
The post Judge Burroughs Grants TRO In Favor Of Harvard Within Hours Of Filing appeared first on Reason.com.
