## Facts

- Harvard Law School Forum planned a public debate at Harvard Law School between Professor Alan Dershowitz and Zuhdi Labib Terzi, the PLO’s Permanent Observer to the United Nations.
- Terzi was an excludable alien by statute based on PLO membership, but he had a limited waiver permitting presence in the United States for UN-related functions in the New York UN area.
- Terzi sought an additional discretionary waiver to travel from the UN area to Cambridge, Massachusetts, to participate in the debate.
- The Secretary of State advised against granting expanded travel authorization; the Attorney General denied the request.
- Plaintiffs (the Forum, Dershowitz, and a student organizer) claimed the denial violated their First Amendment right to receive information and ideas by hearing Terzi speak.
- The government defended the denial as based on foreign policy, including nonrecognition of the PLO and concern that nationwide appearances would confer legitimacy and undermine U.S. policy.

## Issues

1. Whether denying a discretionary waiver that would allow a foreign national to speak at a domestic event infringes U.S. citizens’ First Amendment right to receive information and ideas.
2. What level of judicial review applies to Executive decisions restricting entry or travel of an excludable alien when U.S. citizens assert First Amendment harms.
3. Whether the UN Headquarters Agreement required broader domestic travel permission beyond UN-related transit and activities.

## Decision

- Denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
- Granted the government’s motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment.
- Held that the government supplied a facially legitimate and bona fide reason—foreign policy concerns related to the PLO—so the court would not inquire further into the waiver denial.
- Rejected the argument that the UN Headquarters Agreement compelled authorization for non-UN travel to a university debate.

## Legal Principles

- When the Executive excludes or restricts a foreign national and provides a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, courts do not look behind that reason or balance it against U.S. citizens’ asserted First Amendment interests (Kleindienst v. Mandel standard).
- A discretionary waiver for an excludable alien does not create an entitlement to broader entry or domestic travel; denial is reviewed only for the existence of a facially legitimate and bona fide justification.
- The UN Headquarters Agreement protects access to and from UN Headquarters for official purposes but does not require permission for travel unrelated to UN business.
- In immigration and foreign affairs matters, courts accord substantial deference to political-branch judgments, including foreign-policy rationales for limiting a foreign national’s travel and public appearances.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the denial of expanded travel authorization for a PLO UN observer to speak at Harvard, ruling that the government’s stated foreign-policy rationale was facially legitimate and bona fide and therefore foreclosed further First Amendment-based judicial scrutiny.


Harvard Law Sch. Forum v. Shultz, 633 F. Supp. 525 (D. Mass. 1986)