A consortium of prominent education organisations and unions announced today that it has mounted a legal challenge to the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) final rule ending the Duration of Status (D/S) framework for international students. The group has filed both a complaint challenging the legality of the rule as well as a motion for a preliminary injunction.
A preliminary injunction is a formal request asking a court to issue a temporary order early in a lawsuit – before the case is fully decided – to require someone to do something, or, as in in this case, to stop doing something. The goal of this filing is to compel the government to halt its implementation of the rule replacing D/S with a fixed visa permission of up to four years. After the limit is reached, students and visitors must apply for an extension to US immigration authorities. The final rule is meant to come into effect on 15 September 2026.
Parties to the legal challenge are:
- NAFSA: Association of International Educators
- The Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration
- The Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts (AICUM)
- The American Federation of Teachers (AFT)
- Graduate Labor Organization, AFT Local 6516 (GLO)
- International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW)
- United Auto Workers Local 2322
- The NewsGuild-CWA
“Ending Duration of Status and imposing new limits on academic decision-making is a solution in search of a problem,” said NAFSA CEO and Executive Director Dr Fanta Aw. “The rule will severely undermine the contributions international students make to US campuses, economies, and national security. After carefully reviewing the final rule and the sweeping harm it will cause to our national interest, it is clear that litigation is warranted and necessary.”
McDermott Will & Schulte will represent the plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Background
The D/S system had been in place for decades, and it allowed international students to stay in the US to complete their full academic programme as well as to gain three years of post-study work experience. For more background on what the end of D/S means for students, universities, and businesses, please see our comprehensive article here.
Miriam Feldblum, president and CEO of the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration adds:
“This rule upends the longstanding Duration of Status framework that has allowed international students and scholars to pursue their educational programs while maintaining lawful status. By placing time limits that do not align with actual program lengths or students’ educational needs and shifting crucial academic decisions from institutions to immigration officials, the rule will disrupt educational pathways, impose significant new burdens on colleges and universities, and make the United States less competitive as the premier destination for global talent. We are going to court to protect international students and scholars and to defend our member institutions’ ability to educate, train, and retain them.”
What is the basis for the challenge?
The consortium argues that: “The final rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act because DHS failed to adequately assess its costs and benefits, meaningfully respond to public comments, consider less burdensome alternatives, or justify the rule based on its stated objectives. It also alleges that DHS provided an inadequate public comment period and exceeded its statutory authority.”
“The United States once again is breaking the law for its own political purposes and, in doing so, is hurting Americans and American enterprise,” argues AFT President Randi Weingarten. “And it’s using international students – who we’ve welcomed here to help us – as its pawns. America is a leader in cutting-edge research because generations of scientists from every corner of the globe have been free to pursue difficult questions, challenge conventional wisdom, collaborate openly and publish their findings – without political interference. This latest assault on knowledge by the Trump administration arbitrarily limits how long international scholars have to complete their studies and risks turning a welcoming environment for students into a hostile one. We stand united with our higher education members, international and American alike, so they can continue to make US colleges and universities the envy of the world.”
What is at stake?
The plaintiffs explain: “These changes will create significant uncertainty and administrative burdens for international students and exchange visitors and the institutions that support them. They will also interfere with academic decision-making, disrupt students’ educational and professional plans, and undermine the ability of U.S. colleges and universities to attract and retain global talent.”
Robert McCarron, president and CEO of the Association of Independent Colleges & Universities in Massachusetts comments:
“More than 80,000 international students come to Massachusetts to pursue higher education, adding vibrancy and innovation to our campuses and often founding startups in Massachusetts. These students and researchers drive innovation, pursue life-changing research, and create more than $4 billion annually in economic impact in Massachusetts. The litigation seeks to ensure that such profound changes to the rules governing international students and others comply with applicable legal requirements and reaffirms that Massachusetts continues to welcome talented students and researchers from across the globe.”
What happens next?
Legal observers expect that the court will take up the coalition’s request for emergency relief, which, if successful, would prevent the rule from coming into effect on 15 September.
The immigration law firm Fragomen notes in its guidance that, “Prospects for the lawsuit are uncertain, and employers and foreign nationals should continue to prepare for the scheduled implementation of the new regulation on September 15 in the event the plaintiffs’ efforts to obtain an emergency stay are unsuccessful.”
For additional background, please see: