The Clinic has been working in various ways to support Harvard and its international students in the case of President and Fellows of Harvard College vs. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Among other products, the Clinic helped to produce various social media projects, including this graphic depicting international leaders who have studied at Harvard University, making clear the costs of the U.S. government’s actions.
In May, the clinic helped file an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs-appellees in National Treasury Employees Union v. Russell Vought. Cooperating Attorney Jed Glickstein ’13 and the clinic represented 16 former officials of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) who have worked at the agency across several administrations. The brief argues that the CFPB’s current leadership has undertaken a drastic reduction-in-force operation that de facto guts a congressionally created agency by preventing the agency from carrying out its statutory obligations. The brief argues that absent congressional action to amend or repeal the agency’s substantive statute, this abdication of the CFPB’s duty to discharge its statutory responsibilities is unlawful. Amici encourages the appeals court to affirm the district court’s order for preliminary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs. Oral arguments in this case were held before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on May 16.
In April, the Clinic filed an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs in Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice. Along with the Susman Godfrey law firm, the clinic represented 27 former government officials who have worked at the most senior levels across both Democratic and Republican administrations. The brief argued that President Trump’s executive order sanctioning the Perkins Coie law firm is not based on any legitimate national security concern, and furthermore, violates the separation of powers and constitutes an unconstitutional bill of attainder. The clinic also filed its amicus brief challenging three other executive orders in adjacent cases: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr v. Executive Office of the President, Jenner and Block LLP v. Department of Justice, and Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President. On May 2, Judge Beryl A. Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered summary judgment in favor of Perkins Coie, granting the plaintiff’s request for a permanent injunction against the government’s ability to enforce the executive order. In the court’s opinion, Judge Howell cited the Clinic’s amicus brief. Subsequently, Professor Harold Hongju Koh — alongside clinic members Inbar Pe’er ’25 and Fred Halbhuber ’25 — published two related articles in Just Security — the first piece (also cited in Judge Howell’s opinion) expanding on the brief’s historical bill of attainder argument, and the second piece arguing why the broader collection of law firm “deals” with the Trump Administration are unenforceable.
In February, the clinic and law firm Arnold & Porter filed an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs in Talbott v. Trump. The clinic represented the former Secretary of the Army and former Secretary of the Air Force as amici. The brief argued that President Trump’s executive order restricting transgender service members from continuing to serve in the military deserved no deference by courts on national security grounds because it was rooted in defective process and discriminatory animus. On March 18, Judge Ana C. Reyes of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, citing the clinic’s brief in her opinion.
V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump
In April, Clinic Director and Supervising Attorney Harold Hongju Koh filed a brief as amicus curiae before the Court of International Trade in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, arguing that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose across-the-board tariffs in the name of national emergency. A panel of the Court of International Trade (CIT) held a hearing for May 13 on all pending motions, including the motion for preliminary injunction. Related amicus briefs were filed in May in (1) Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (District Court for the District of Columbia), with a hearing scheduled before Judge Rudolph Contreras on May 27 to consider the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction and the government’s motion to transfer the case to the CIT; (2) California v. Trump (Northern District of California), with a hearing scheduled on June 26 before Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley to hear the California Attorney General’s preliminary injunction motion; and (3) Emily Ley Paper Inc. v. Trump (Northern District of Florida), in which the government has a pending motion to transfer jurisdiction to the CIT). The story of the amicus brief is told in a New York Times article and podcast.
Other Activities:
