Lawsuit Challenges Trump Administration’s Detention of Harvard Scientist

A high-stakes legal battle is unfolding in a federal courtroom, potentially setting a precedent for the detention of visa holders, including international students and scholars, under the Trump administration’s policies. U.S. District Court Judge Christina Reiss is scheduled to hear arguments on May 14 in the case of Kseniia Petrova, a Russian scientist formerly working at Harvard Medical School, who claims she was wrongfully detained by U.S. authorities.

Petrova’s ordeal began in February when U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) canceled her J-1 work-study visa upon her return to Boston from France. The CBP alleged that she had failed to declare scientific samples she was carrying. Subsequently, she was transferred to the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Petrova’s legal team contends that CBP’s actions were "arbitrary and capricious" and that her detention is unlawful.

The Trump administration, however, maintains that its actions were within its legal authority. Homeland Security issued a statement asserting that Petrova "was lawfully detained after lying to federal officers about carrying substances into the country."

This case has garnered significant attention, raising concerns about the treatment of international scholars and the potential impact on scientific research and innovation in the United States.

Petrova’s Background and Research

Kseniia Petrova, 30, is a highly regarded geneticist who was employed at a Harvard Medical School lab under a J-1 visa. Her research focused on anti-aging and cancer, contributing to cutting-edge scientific advancements.

Prior to her arrival at Harvard, Petrova was involved in the Genome Russia project, a large-scale initiative aimed at mapping the genetic variations of the Russian population. However, her involvement in protests against Russia’s war on Ukraine put her at odds with the Putin regime. Fearing political persecution, she fled Russia and eventually found a research position at Harvard.

Leon Peshkin, Petrova’s supervisor at Harvard, emphasized her exceptional qualifications and the importance of her work. According to Peshkin, Petrova was the ideal candidate to fill a critical role in his lab, which is dedicated to anti-aging research, a rapidly advancing field of science. He recounted how Petrova’s expertise in applied mathematics and biology made her a "perfect match" for the lab’s needs.

Peshkin had requested Petrova to retrieve samples of frog embryos from the Institut Curie in Paris and transport them back to the Harvard lab. This decision was motivated by previous incidents where shipments of similar materials had been lost or damaged during transit, making hand-carrying a more reliable option.

The Incident at Logan Airport

Petrova claims she did not declare the samples because she believed it was unnecessary. According to her complaint filed in federal district court, the samples were non-living, embedded in paraffin, chemically fixed, dehydrated, and "entirely harmless."

However, the government’s account differs. They claim a K9 inspection of Petrova’s luggage revealed "undeclared petri dishes, containers of unknown substances, and loose vials of embryonic frog cells, all without proper permits." CBP has established rules for importing biological materials into the United States, which they allege Petrova violated.

In contrast, Martin Chalfie, chair of the National Academies Committee on Human Rights and a Nobel laureate in chemistry, filed an amicus brief asserting that the embryos were "incapable of growing or transmitting disease." Chalfie further stated that similar materials are commonly found in high school and college biology laboratories throughout the country.

Upon her arrival at Boston’s Logan International Airport, a CBP officer initially stamped Petrova’s passport, validating her J-1 scholar visa. However, at baggage claim, officers flagged her luggage due to the undeclared items.

Typically, CBP handles such situations by seizing the undeclared items and potentially issuing a fine. However, in Petrova’s case, a customs officer revoked her visa and offered her the option to withdraw her application for admission to the United States and return to France on the next available flight, which she was willing to do.

According to the complaint, the situation escalated when the CBP officer asked Petrova two questions: "Would you like the U.S. government to contact the Russian government to let them know you are here?" and "Do you have fear or are afraid to return to your home country?" Petrova stated that she feared returning to Russia due to political persecution.

Her claim of fear triggered an asylum process. CBP then prevented her from returning to France and initiated expedited removal proceedings through ICE.

Detention and Legal Challenges

ICE subsequently transferred Petrova to a processing center in Vermont before moving her to the Richwood Correctional Center in Monroe, Louisiana, where she has been detained for three months. It’s important to note that she faces no civil or criminal charges.

Petrova’s lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Vermont, where Judge Reiss serves as chief judge.

Seventeen U.S. senators have expressed concern about Petrova’s detention and potential deportation to Russia. They sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in March, urging ICE to release Petrova while her asylum case is pending. The senators emphasized that, absent evidence suggesting Petrova is a flight risk or a danger to the community, ICE should exercise its discretion to release her from detention. They also highlighted the potential for persecution if Petrova is deported to Russia.

Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell filed an affidavit in support of Petrova, warning that the administration’s detention of international students threatens the state’s economy and the country’s global leadership in scientific innovation. Campbell argued that the Trump administration’s actions send a "chilling message" to talented students and academics worldwide, suggesting they risk detention, deportation, and the end of their academic careers in the United States at the whim of the federal government.

The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for the treatment of international scholars and the future of scientific research in the United States. The court’s decision will likely be closely scrutinized by universities, research institutions, and immigration advocates alike.