Judge Burroughs Grants TRO In Favor Of Harvard Within Hours Of Filing

Did she even read the 72-page complaint, 59-page motion for a TRO, and two-dozen exhibits?

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.

Comments

[arpiniant1]

Waaaaaaaaah!
the gov't is not supposed to be the implementor of one man's stupidity
would you want Gavin Newsome to have all this power?
Or would you expect courts to act quickly if the theoretical most liberal President you can imagine does stupid things?
Ponder what happens when a deeply unpopular President with deeply unpopular policies is replaced by someone who is actually popular with popular ideas that you disagree with has this level of power
Or are you still supporting a coup, so you won't have to find out?

[Supremacy Claus]

This is a biased judge. Impeach. Congress should set up a fast track. Impeach judges in 24 hours or less. They are dangerous to national security and survival.

[Jayem92]

So can Democrats impeach Matty Kacsmaryk? He's currently disobeying the Supreme Court by refusing to dismiss a case (the mifepristone suit) over which he has no jurisdiction.

[Glaucomatose]

I mean, Congress could do a lot of things that they won't actually do.

Your sad little rant about impeaching Judge Burroughs is just one example.

[Jayem92]

It's pointless to ask Republicans whether they would want a Democrat to have all this power, because people like Josh have no intention of allowing a Democrat to wield power ever again, by military coup if necessary.

[Supremacy Claus]

Ironic when Democrats imported 20 million illegales to cheat the nation into a permanent one party state shithole like Venezuela or San Francisco.

[cannpro]

Josh is just jealous the judge can actually read. I’ve never seen anything to indicate Josh reads any of the cases he complains about, or is even literate beyond a second grade reading comprehension.

[Patrick Henry, the 2nd]

Nah haters like you are jealous Josh can comprehend and prove you wrong. Talk about jealousy.

[Lee Moore]

Never mind the judge reading it - Harvard managed to generate those carefully thought out 131 pages in less than 24 hours !

Maybe they had an inkling of what was coming. Maybe the judge did too.

[Bob from Ohio]

With this judge, could have been one page. Same result.

[MaddogEngineer]

Yes, I made that same observation down below. Or the judge's clerk did.

Ex parte TRO. Ex parte communication. Tom-ay-to, tom-ah-to.

[Jayem92]

TROs are explicitly allowed to be ex parte so not quite sure what argument you think you're making.

[not guilty]

This particular TRO is not ex parte. The Court specifically found that the Plaintiff "has made a sufficient showing that it has provided notice to Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Todd Lyons, Department of Justice, Pamela Bondi, Student and Exchange Visitor Program, Jim Hicks, Department of State, and Marco Rubio (collectively, “Defendants”) and that, unless its Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”), [ECF No. 4 (the “Motion”)], is granted, it will sustain immediate and irreparable injury before there is an opportunity to hear from all parties." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.285083/gov.uscourts.mad.285083.11.0_5.pdf

[Rob K]

This is really not going to end well

[A Woman of No Importance]

"Did she even read the 72-page complaint, 59-page motion for a TRO, and two-dozen exhibits?"

No, Josh, one of her clerks did. C'mon, you know how that works. The emergency filing came in. She told one of her clerks to drop whatever else was being worked on and immediately take a look at it. The clerk took an hour, maybe two, to get a grasp of what was being argued, explained it to the judge, who then told him/her to draft an order.

You may or may not remember how things were done when you were a law clerk; I very much remember how things were done when I was.

[JimM47]

"Do they even read it" is by far my least favorite criticism of judicial orders in emergency cases.

"But it's so many pages for them to read on such a tight timeline!"

Yeah, we know.

[Patrick Henry, the 2nd]

Right that's the problem. Her clerks are not the Judge. She is. She should read the whole thing.

[A Woman of No Importance]

I would bet a week's salary that you have never been either a judge or a law clerk.

In the jurisdiction in which I practice, the average judge has a thousand open cases at any given time. If you think justice is slow now, just imagine what it would look like if the clerks weren't doing the preliminary grunt work for the judge.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

I would bet a year's salary that judges are employees of taxpayers.

[A Woman of No Importance]

I'm sure you have a point in there somewhere but it's not immediately apparent what it is.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

I'd bet a lifetime's salary you think judges are omnipotent.

[A Woman of No Importance]

I'll take that bet and you're wrong; I don't think that.

[CJColucci]

My conservative estimate is that about 30% of any TRO application is boilerplate recitation of legal standards well-known to most judges. Much of the factual account will be straightforward and undisputed at the TRO stage. Most of the rest can be skimmed quickly without any loss for purposes of a TRO. (It may be necessary to get deeper into the weeds for a PI and will certainly be more complicated later.) It is easily possible to read something of the size put before the judge in about an hour. I've done it.

[Supremacy Claus]

Judges are just lazy, worthless, slow shuffling government employees. They should all be fired.

[Please, Daivd, Seek Help]

To be clear the point of the post you're commenting on is that the judge is working too quickly. If the argument is that when a judge responds quickly they must be lazy (because they are cutting corners) and when a judge responds slowly they must be lazy (because they should work faster -- as when Blackman, for instance, got incredibly mad and wrote 5 separate posts that it took Jackson 11 days to refer a non-emergency case to the court), then wow congrats you hate judges, very persuasive.

[Tallman]

"ChatGPT: how should I rule on this motion?"

[MaddogEngineer]

Emergency! Emergency!

[Josh R]

I think of Judge Hendrix. The ACLU expected him to resolve a complex case in the span of hours.

It was not complex that Trump was about to deport people. And, it's not complex that Trump might go ahead and deport students in 3 days (Noem's notice have Harvard 72 hours to comply).

[Darwinnie]

Yes, and also it’s a TRO. All the nonlawyers or even those who haven’t had to litigate in a real emergency situation likely don’t realize that this is truly just a “hold on a little bit while we evaluate the merits.” Seriously, this is nowhere near a final ruling.

[JohnSmith97]

Yeah, the final ruling will come out in 3 years or so. The TRO will be in place the whole time.

[Darwinnie]

No, there would have to be a hearing for a preliminary injunction complete with witnesses and evidence. A TRO will not last three years.

[David Nieporent]

The TRO will be in place the whole time.

Incorrect. TROs last 14 days. For good cause, they can be extended once for another 14 days.

[dwb68]

In fairness, it could be done. Everyone knew this was coming the second the case was assigned.

In any case, does it matter? No smart foreign student is going to risk not being able to finish a semester or year. They will transfer. Enrollment will decline. The damage is done.

[A Woman of No Importance]

As a practical matter, can you transfer with only days left before the semester ends?

[Jayem92]

AFAIK the semester is already over, so this mostly affects Fall 2025 enrollment.

[Patrick Henry, the 2nd]

True. Harvard should've followed the law and also stamped out antisemitism.

[arpiniant1]

traitortrump doesn't want to stamp out antisemitism, his swastika carrying supporters wouldn't support that

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Kinda confused, aren't you? No leading cap, missing full stop, but you got in an apostrophe and comma.

[Bob from Ohio]

What possible difference would it make if she had read the motion? No one in the world thinks she will side with the government.

Obama appointee and already was one of the "travel ban" judges in 2017 and thought it peachy to let Harvard screw American Asian students.

[Jayem92]

And I'm sure you'd say the same about Josh's BFF Matty Kacsmaryk, the Emperor of Amarillo?

[Bob from Ohio]

Sure. He's a partisan too.

[TimT1777]

As you well know, Emergency Ex Parte's are just band aids until a hearing can be held on the TRO. Nothing to see here.

[ChristopherJLinas]

Josh Blackman wishes the judge spent an amount of time reading the papers that is just slightly more than the amount of time it takes to fly college students to CECOT.

[Purple Martin]

Here's part of the ToC of Harvard's request for TRO:

LEGAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................4

A. The Statutory and Regulatory Framework for SEVP Certification.................4
B. Regulations Governing “Withdrawal” of SEVP F-1 Certification..................6
C. Regulations Governing the J Visa Program.....................................................8

FACTUAL BACKGROUND...................................................................10

A. Harvard’s Longstanding Participation in the F-1 and J-1 Visa Program...........................10
B. The Government’s Assault on Academic Freedom at Harvard...........................11
C. DHS’s Unprecedented and Retaliatory Demand and Harvard’s
Initial Document Production ...........................................................13
D. Subsequent Developments, DHS’s Second Information Request, and Harvard’s Second Document Production ..............16
E. DHS’s Revocation of Harvard’s Certification.............................19
F. The Immediate and Irreparable Harm Inflicted by This Lawless Action.............21

Yes Josh, it seems pretty likely she read it. Did you?

[Patrick Henry, the 2nd]

No she likely did not and Josh likely did.

If she read it she would've not set a TRO because Harvard has zero legs to stand on.

[dwb68]

It wouldn't have mattered if Moses himself had reappeared and delivered the government's arguments on stone tablets.

This is the same judge who allowed Harvard to get away with its race-based admissions policy that was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court.

She was going to rule for Harvard. I predict the merits arguments are perfunctory. She will copypaste what Harvard lawyers' brief and leave it for the appeals court and the Supreme Court to deal with

[Glaucomatose]

This is the same judge who allowed Harvard to get away with its race-based admissions policy that was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court.

You mean she applied existing Supreme Court precedent at the time, before the Supreme Court overruled their own precedent?

What would you prefer district court judges to do?

[BMS]

I knew a former magistrate judge who said that she would stop reading a warrant application once she got far enough to be convinced that probable cause existed for the proposed search or seizure. That seems right to me, and the right strategy for granting a TRO, so long as the judge sets prompt hearing on a longer-term preliminary injunction.

Certainly would not expect the complaint to be read and considered. A TRO motion should stand on its own, presenting the basic facts and evidence necessary to convince the judge to grant relief.

[arpiniant1]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.WlcsQxAzQfYDvp1F0sP0rwHaEK%26cb%3Diwc2%26pid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=ac72acfa8274304ff085edafe5125785621b44f5489e59ae756e8d217c80e317&ipo=images

[Mark Regan]

To be blunt about it, noticing that there are regulations on this subject that the US is not following, and reading the May 22 letter (Exhibit 25 to the Complaint), is all a sensible judge would have to do in order confidently to issue a TRO.

[MaddogEngineer]

Not sensible, because there could be something else here that says otherwise.

I know, I know, the law is so easy, even a caveman can do it. Except Blackman obviously.

[David Nieporent]

Except Blackman obviously.

Blackman is not going to win any IQ contests, but the primary issue with him with respect to all of these things is motivated reasoning, not the inability to reason.

[DIsrobing]

I guess I can understand why a professor at at Top 200 law school would think that it takes days to read 72 pages.

What an embarrassment this bozo is.

[MaddogEngineer]

Not days, but certainly more than hours.

Blackman is the stopped clock.

[DIsrobing]

Apparently the many august scholars over at the Harlan Institute are still learning to read the law with phonics.

[MaddogEngineer]

Orange Man Bad.

Everyone knows this. No need to read and closely contemplate the briefs. Immediate, irreparable harm obviously.

(I've spent almost as much time thinking about what to post here, based on the headline, as the judge possibly could have before issuing the TRO. Unless of course the judge had an earlier preview of the plaintiff's arguments. #eyeroll )

[Jayem92]

It's flagrantly obvious that Harvard would suffer irreparable harm absent the TRO. Arguments can be made about the underlying merits, but there's absolutely no reason why DHS needs this implemented NOW.

[David Nieporent]

Unless of course the judge had an earlier preview of the plaintiff's arguments

You mean, like, by reading the newspaper? None of the arguments were a surprise; any competent lawyer could know what they would be the moment the administration issued its threat.

[JohnSmith97]

And I was under the impression that judges didn't go looking around for cases to take. I guess like everything in the land of Clinton/Obama/Biden judges - things are (D)ifferent now.

[David Nieporent]

What are you talking about? the judge didn't go around looking for anything. Harvard filed the case. But every single judge in D.Mass knew the case was coming.

[John F. Carr]

If you file 130 pages of bloated verbiage for a matter that could be condensed to a quarter the size, you should have to wait until the judge has personally read every word.

[tylertusta]

I wonder if the judge issued the TRO just to get time to read the damned thing to forestall Harvard's appeal and to prevent SCOTUS from issuing a scolding per curiam that blamed the district court's inaction for not acting within 42 minutes.

[David Nieporent]

The ACLU expected him to resolve a complex case in the span of hours.

It did not. It expected him to issue an emergency TRO in the span of hours. Once he had done so, he would've had at least two weeks to resolve the case, which isn't really complex at all.

This mode of judging is reckless,

It's literally the opposite of reckless.

[Jayem92]

Such an obvious point that Trump Regime mouthpieces like Josh are either unwilling or unable to acknowledge.

[Bubba Jones]

Am I supposed to be angry about a TRO that preserves the status quo for a few days prior to a hearing?

Orange man sock puppet is mad he can’t deport any Harvard students before graduation?

People who are confident they are right don’t whine about these things.

People who are trying to blow things up before people can react? This is exactly how they behave.

[Sarcastr0]

So Josh's new thing is to be a law professor doing legal analysis while being profoundly ignorant about the legal practices he's analyzing.
This gives him the freedom to confidently spout outrage bait for his fellow outcome-oriented ignoramuses.

I'm getting more a FOX News analyst vibe than angling for a judgeship.

[QuantumBoxCat]

"I'm getting more a FOX News analyst vibe than angling for a judgeship."

For Trump, they're the same thing.

[LawTalkingGuy]

An experienced judge or lawyer (should) know how to quickly get through large documents submitted by quality lawyers. They’ll be structured in such a way to make it easy for judges and their clerks to identify which part is standard boilerplate, which is fluff, and which is the heart of the matter. I understand why a law professor might find quickly digesting litigation documents mystifying, but it’s what lawyers and judges do.

[MollyGodiva]

When Trump does something illegal, it is best that the courts enjoin it while it get's litigated.

[bernard11]

This is absurd.

Trump is attacking, and trying to destroy, in fact, one of the country's leading universities - arguably the leading American university - out of nothing more than personal spite and a desire to perform for his idiot followers.

Kristi Noem goes along - because she's a Trump ass-kisser - who probably thinks habeas corpus gives Trump the right to do so.

I fail to see how a blatant attempt to do massive damage to Harvard, or any other university, on the basis of personal dislike, is not an impeachable offense. It's fundamentally no different than vandalizing a lab or a laboratory.

But Blackman doesn't care to comment other than to criticize the judge who issued the TRO.

[Roger S]

From a NY Times op-ed:
According to its critics, Harvard is a “national disgrace,” a “woke madrasa,” a “Maoist indoctrination camp,” a “ship of fools,” a “bastion of rampant anti-Jewish hatred and harassment,” a “cesspool of extremist riots” and an “Islamist outpost” in which the “dominant view on campus” is “destroy the Jews, and you’ve destroyed the root of Western civilization.”

And that’s before we get to President Trump’s opinion that Harvard is “an Anti-Semitic, Far Left Institution,” a “Liberal mess” and a “threat to Democracy,” which has been “hiring almost all woke, Radical Left, idiots and ‘birdbrains’ who are only capable of teaching FAILURE to students and so-called future leaders.”

[bernard11]

That's in contention for dumbest post of the year.

Everyone knows Harvard has critics, and a lot of them, like you, are RW nutbags. So you quote a lot of those nutbags to show what, exactly?

Oh, I get it. The second paragraph is to show that Trump is one of the nutbags, or their inspiration.

If not, what are you talking about.

[Foxwhelp]

The thing that makes this garbage -- sorry, a thing that makes this garbage, is the pretence that what Judge Hendrix did wasn't making a decision. For the hard of understanding, temporary relief -- especially ex parte temporary relief, is primarily short term relief available to preserve the status quo when things are moving so fast that taking the time to make a considered decision will have the effect of denying one party's ability to have a fair hearing on some important aspect of the case. Judge Hendrix, by insisting, contrary to rule 65, that the government was too be given notice and an opportunity to respond at time people were to be sent in less than 24 hours to irrevocable incarceration in a brutal prison outside the reach of American law was not "careful consideration of the issues" it was a spur of the moment decision that the rights of these people and their constitutional claims were not sufficiently important to be preserved long enough to ensure that they had a fair hearing, even though just days before a unanimous Supreme Court had held they were entitled to a fair hearing. Judge Hendrix was not "careful" he simply chose inaction in callous indifference to the obvious that to the unambiguous rights of these people.

[Foxwhelp]

Or to put it another way, all a TRO is is a judge saying "that thing you're doing -- it doesn't look like it can be undone so don't do it just yet. Let's wait a few days so i can hear from both sides whether it should be done or not". To refuse to consider issuing one without twenty four hours for the other party to respond when that same party is going to do it in less than twenty four hours isn't being careful, it's making an active decision to let the other party go ahead

[wvattorney13]

I thought orders within hours were only for true emergencies like illegal immigrants being deported. Now we see that immediate rulings are for all leftist causes.

[Josh R]

Immediate in this case had to be within 3 days (Noem's letter gave Harvard 3 days). This one was so obvious, less than a day sufficed.

[Gregory]

This is pretty easy: one of her clerks did and they did so without difficulty. A couple hundred pages are not hard for someone in a district court to digest in that time frame.