The clock is ticking in one of the most consequential immigration cases of the year. Today, August 31, 2026, marks the deadline for the federal government to file its response to a coalition's motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to block the Department of Homeland Security's final rule eliminating "duration of status" (D/S) for international students and exchange visitors.
On August 19, Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV issued an order setting the briefing schedule, with the defendant's response due August 31 and an in-person motion hearing scheduled for September 9, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 1.
The stakes could hardly be higher.
The rule takes effect September 15, 2026
— just six days after the hearing — and as of today, no court order has been issued to delay or block its implementation.
What the Rule Changes
Since the 1970s, F-1 students and most J-1 exchange visitors have been admitted to the United States for "duration of status" — an open-ended period tied to maintaining a valid program rather than a fixed calendar date on the Form I-94.
On July 17, 2026, DHS published a final rule replacing this longstanding framework with fixed admission periods of no more than four years, also changing the admission framework for representatives of foreign media in I status by imposing fixed periods of admission.
DHS's final rule eliminates the "duration of status" framework and imposes fixed admission periods of up to four years for F-1 and J-1 nonimmigrants and up to 240 days for I nonimmigrants.
This is one of the most significant structural changes to the F, J, and I visa categories in decades.
Under the new framework,
F, J, and I nonimmigrants who need to remain beyond their authorized admission period must file extension of stay applications with USCIS, submit biometrics, and demonstrate continued eligibility.
Those who stay beyond their fixed period of stay would accrue unlawful presence
, potentially triggering
a three-year bar from re-entry to the U.S. if they are unlawfully present for more than 180 days but less than one year, or a 10-year bar if they have been unlawfully present for one year or more.
The rule also
shortens the F-1 grace period from 60 to 30 days, affecting departure, transfer, change of status, change of level, and practical training timelines, leaving students much less time after graduation to make immigration decisions.
The Lawsuit: Who Filed and What They Argue
The complaint and preliminary injunction were filed on August 18, 2026, by a coalition of plaintiffs including 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; and The NewsGuild-CWA.
Plaintiffs are represented by McDermott Will & Schulte.
Importantly, these organizations are not arguing DHS can't end duration of status — they're arguing DHS didn't follow the rules for how a federal agency has to justify a change this big.
The complaint 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, and justify the rule based on its stated objectives. It also alleges that DHS provided an inadequate public comment period and exceeded its statutory authority.
At the heart of the complaint is DHS's own cost-benefit analysis. While DHS said the rule would impose at least $443 million in annual direct compliance costs, it declined to estimate the largest "cost" of all: lost international student enrollment.
Indeed,
in the final rule, DHS acknowledged that "enrollment of foreign students in US educational institutions may decline because of this rule but is unable to quantify the extent of this decline."
The plaintiffs characterized the rule as "arbitrary and capricious,"
warning of severe economic and academic consequences, including reduced international student enrollment, weakened university finances, and a loss of talent in critical fields.
Enrollment Declines Already Underway
The litigation arrives against a backdrop of rapidly declining international enrollment.
International student enrollment in the U.S. has declined by 20% this year compared to last, and other countries such as Canada, the U.K., and Australia, as well as China, have been actively competing for this population and winning more of it.
NAFSA's upper-range projection estimates that international enrollment could fall from about 1.17 million students in 2025–26 to roughly 1.06 million in 2026–27, representing a decline of approximately 9.5%.
International applications to U.S. doctoral programs have fallen 21%, and Common App data show international applications down 9% for the 2026–27 cycle, including a 14% decline from India.
In the motion requesting the injunction, the plaintiffs note that the rule is already affecting institutions and students, with colleges reporting that some international students have withdrawn their fall 2026 enrollment out of concern about the end of duration of status, while other institutions said that the number of applications they received from international students tanked this year.
The economic implications are staggering.
Brookings estimates an enrollment decline of roughly one-third of international students in the long term, reducing the stock of overall high-skill STEM workers in the U.S. by 6.2%.
International students contribute about $43 billion to the U.S. economy annually.
What Happens Next — and What Students Should Do Now
The government's response filing today will be a critical document, revealing how DHS defends the rule's legal basis.
A federal judge in Boston will hear arguments September 9 — six days before the rule takes effect.
Filing a lawsuit does not automatically suspend a federal regulation. Unless the court issues an order blocking or postponing implementation, or DHS announces another change, the rule remains scheduled to take effect on September 15.
For current F-1 students already in the U.S. under D/S, the rule includes transition provisions.
These students may remain in the United States without applying for an extension of stay up to the Program End Date on their Form I-20 or the end of their post-completion OPT or STEM OPT that is valid on the rule's effective date, not to exceed November 14, 2030.
For students entering after September 15, the landscape shifts dramatically.
Going forward, maintaining a valid SEVIS record or continuing to comply with program terms will not necessarily mean that an individual can remain indefinitely under D/S — the expiration date on the Form I-94 will become a critical date that must be monitored.
Practical Takeaways
Immigration practitioners and international student advisors are offering consistent guidance: prepare for the rule to take effect as scheduled, while monitoring the litigation closely.
The litigation could affect implementation of the rule, so individuals should monitor developments closely. Unless and until the rule is enjoined, however, individuals should plan for the September 15, 2026, effective date.
Universities should be actively
auditing SEVIS and DS-2019 records to identify students and exchange visitors approaching program end dates, updating internal advising materials and I-20 issuance practices, and training designated school officials on the new fixed-period framework, the reduced 30-day grace period, and the narrowed grounds for extension requests.
The September 9 hearing before Judge Saylor will be the moment of truth for the hundreds of thousands of international students and scholars whose educational futures may hang in the balance. Whether the court grants emergency relief or allows the rule to proceed, the decision will reverberate through every university campus in America — and across the globe.
ClinchLaw will continue to monitor this case and provide updates as the government's response is filed and the September 9 hearing approaches. Individuals affected by this rule should consult with an experienced immigration attorney to understand their specific situation.