A federal judge has blocked a Department of Homeland Security rule that would have ended the longstanding Duration of Status framework for international students, exchange visitors and foreign media representatives, preventing the changes from taking effect nationwide while litigation continues.
U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV of the District of Massachusetts issued the preliminary injunction on Sept. 14, one day before the DHS rule was scheduled to take effect.
The order postpones the effective date of the final rule and bars DHS from implementing it while the lawsuit moves forward. The existing Duration of Status system therefore remains in place nationwide for now.
What the blocked DHS rule would have changed
DHS published the final rule in the Federal Register on July 17. It would have replaced Duration of Status with fixed admission periods for F, J and I classifications and introduced new extension-of-stay requirements. The rule was scheduled to take effect on Sept. 15.
READ: No more 60 days? DHS targets H-1B, L-1 and other foreign workers (September 10, 2026)
For F and J nonimmigrants, the rule generally established admission periods tied to program dates, with a maximum of four years. Students or exchange visitors needing additional time could have been required to seek an extension of stay through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
The final rule also would have shortened the departure period for affected F-1 students from 60 days to 30 days in relevant circumstances.
For foreign journalists in I status, the rule would have imposed a substantially shorter fixed period, with the court noting a 240-day limit under the new framework.
The rule also included restrictions impacting academic mobility, including limits involving additional degrees, changes in educational objectives and transfers between institutions, according to the court’s review.
Why the court blocked the rule
Judge Saylor found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in showing that DHS had acted arbitrarily and capriciously under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The court concluded that DHS had failed in several areas, including adequately responding to significant public comments, considering less burdensome alternatives and establishing a rational connection between the rule and its stated goals of addressing fraud and national security concerns.
The judge wrote that plaintiffs had demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, immediate irreparable harm if the rule took effect, and that the balance of equities and public interest favored an injunction.
The court also pointed to the potential disruption for students and universities. It noted evidence that some international students had already withdrawn from programs and that one university had reported a 42% decline in international student applications for the academic year.
The judge cited the broader economic role of international education, noting that international students contributed about $44 billion to the U.S. economy in 2023-24 and directly supported nearly 400,000 jobs, according to evidence submitted in the case.
NAFSA welcomes nationwide relief
NAFSA: Association of International Educators was among the organizations that brought the lawsuit challenging the DHS rule.
Fanta Aw, NAFSA’s executive director and CEO, said the ruling was “an important step toward preserving a fair and predictable system for international students and scholars.”
READ: DHS changes green card rules for children born to foreign government employees (September 5, 2026)
The Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, the American Federation of Teachers, UAW organizations and The NewsGuild-CWA were also plaintiffs in the case. The coalition is represented by McDermott Will & Schulte.
Miriam Feldblum, president and CEO of the Presidents’ Alliance, said the decision would preserve the system that allows U.S. colleges and universities to attract and retain international talent while the litigation continues.
What international students should know now
For the moment, the Sept. 15 implementation of the DHS rule will not go forward. Universities advising F-1 and J-1 students have said the current Duration of Status framework remains in effect following the court order.
The ruling, however, is preliminary rather than a final decision on whether the DHS rule is lawful. Judge Saylor postponed its effective date but denied the plaintiffs’ request to permanently vacate the rule at this stage, without prejudice to pursuing that relief later.
That means the legal challenge is continuing and the future of the fixed-admission framework remains unresolved.