The Department of Homeland Security's rule replacing duration of status with fixed admission periods for F, J, and I nonimmigrants did not take effect on September 15, 2026. One day before the scheduled effective date, Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV postponed the rule nationwide under section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act and barred DHS and ICE from taking further steps to implement it while the case proceeds.
The government filed a notice of appeal on September 30. That filing did not suspend the district court's order. As of October 5, the familiar D/S framework remains in place nationwide, and the parties are addressing how the district-court case and the First Circuit appeal should proceed. The next required submissions in the district court are due October 9.
Where the Case Stands Now
The lawsuit is Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 1:26-cv-13799-FDS, in the District of Massachusetts. The court granted preliminary relief on September 14 after concluding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that DHS acted arbitrarily and capriciously and that allowing the rule to take effect would cause immediate, irreparable harm.
The court postponed the rule's effective date rather than permanently setting the rule aside. It denied the request for vacatur and summary judgment without prejudice, which means those issues may return as the case moves toward a decision on the merits. DHS's appeal likewise continues, but an appeal alone does not lift the existing order.
What Remains in Effect Today
For a person admitted in F-1 or J-1 status with D/S on Form I-94, the September 15 date did not create a new four-year deadline. The existing system remains controlling: the person may remain for the authorized program or activity while continuing to comply with the conditions of status. F-1 students must still maintain the required course of study, follow SEVIS rules, and work only as authorized. J-1 exchange visitors must continue to follow their program and sponsor requirements.
D/S is not the same as an unexpired visa stamp, and it is not permission to ignore the program end date or status rules. A visa generally permits a person to request admission at a port of entry. Status inside the United States depends on the admission record and continued compliance. Travel, a new admission, a SEVIS change, unauthorized employment, or a program interruption can still affect an individual's position even while the injunction remains in force.
The Fixed-Period Rule That Did Not Take Effect
DHS published the final rule on July 17, 2026. It would have replaced D/S with fixed admission periods generally limited to four years for F and J nonimmigrants and 240 days for most I-category foreign media representatives. A person needing additional time would generally have had to request an extension of stay from USCIS.
The rule also included transition provisions, new extension procedures, limits affecting academic changes and transfers, and a shorter departure period for affected F-1 students. Those changes are not currently operative because the court postponed the effective date of the final rule in its entirety.
Why the Court Postponed the Rule
The court's ruling focused on administrative law. It found a substantial likelihood that DHS had not reasonably connected the rule to its stated national-security and fraud-prevention goals, had not adequately addressed significant public comments and less burdensome alternatives, and had not reasonably assessed important costs. The court emphasized that its role was to review whether the agency followed the Administrative Procedure Act, not to decide whether fixed admission periods were wise policy.
DHS can argue on appeal that Congress gave the agency broad authority over the time and conditions of nonimmigrant admission and that the final rule reasonably addressed oversight and compliance concerns. The preliminary order is therefore an important current constraint, but it is not the final word on the rule's legality.
Clinch Law Legal Analysis
What Students, Exchange Visitors, and Schools Should Do
Students and exchange visitors should use the rules that are currently in effect rather than planning around the postponed four-year system. They should keep copies of the current Form I-94, Form I-20 or DS-2019, employment authorization documents, and school or sponsor communications. A person approaching a program end date, considering travel, changing schools or programs, or dealing with a SEVIS issue should evaluate that event under the existing rules and the person's own immigration record.
Filing and Form Questions
The injunction can affect forms and filing procedures that were created specifically to implement the postponed rule. Before submitting Form I-539, Form I-765, or another time-sensitive filing, applicants should confirm the edition and instructions shown on the current USCIS form page. A form prepared from an earlier announcement should not be assumed correct merely because it was downloaded before the court order.
Travel and Readmission
The court order preserves the current regulatory framework, but it does not guarantee visa issuance or admission after international travel. A returning student or exchange visitor may still face a consular review, inspection by Customs and Border Protection, and questions about the SEVIS record, program participation, funding, or eligibility. Travel planning should therefore be based on current documents and case-specific facts, not solely on the existence of the injunction.
What Happens Next
At the October 2 status conference, the government indicated that it intended to seek expedited appellate proceedings and requested a pause in district-court litigation. The plaintiffs asked the district court to move toward prompt final judgment so the merits could be reviewed together with the appeal. Judge Saylor directed the parties to file their positions on those procedural questions by October 9.
The practical status can change if the First Circuit stays or modifies the district court's order, if the district court enters final judgment, or if DHS takes a new action consistent with later court rulings. Until one of those events changes the governing posture, the fixed-period rule remains blocked nationwide.
When to Check the Docket Again
A new court order matters most when a person is close to travel, a program completion date, an OPT or STEM OPT deadline, a change of status filing, or another event that depends on current admission rules. Those cases should be checked against the latest docket and agency instructions immediately before action is taken.
Sources
- https://www.presidentsalliance.org/duration-of-status-litigation/
- https://www.nafsa.org/press-release-lawsuit-challenging-rule-ending-duration-status
- https://studyinthestates.dhs.gov/final-rule-establishing-a-fixed-time-period-of-admission-and-an-extension-of-stay-procedure-quick
- https://www.presidentsalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/9.14.26-opinion-in-DS-case.pdf
- https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2026-14439.pdf
This article provides general information and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration outcomes depend on individual facts and current law.
For students and exchange visitors, the immediate result is practical: the four-year fixed-admission system is not in effect, and September 15 did not create a new expiration date for a person whose I-94 shows D/S. The existing rules still require full compliance with the academic or exchange program, SEVIS reporting, and employment limits. Anyone preparing to travel, finish a program, change schools, apply for OPT, or resolve a SEVIS problem should use the current rules and verify the latest agency instructions before acting.
The legal position is less permanent than the day-to-day answer. The district court postponed the rule under APA section 705 after finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their arbitrary-and-capricious claim; it did not finally vacate the rule. DHS has appealed and may seek faster appellate review. The strongest government argument is that Congress granted broad authority over nonimmigrant admission periods, while the plaintiffs argue that this authority still requires reasoned agency decision-making. A later stay, merits judgment, or appellate order could change the result.
Questions Clients Are Asking#
Did every F-1 student's status change on September 15, 2026?
No. The court postponed the final rule before its scheduled effective date, so the fixed four-year admission system did not begin. A student whose Form I-94 shows D/S remains governed by the existing duration-of-status framework, but must continue maintaining F-1 status through study, SEVIS compliance, and authorized employment.
Does D/S mean I can remain in the United States without an end date?
No. D/S ties the authorized stay to continued compliance with the program and immigration rules rather than to a single calendar date on Form I-94. The program end date, authorized practical training, SEVIS record, employment authorization, and any status violation can still determine whether a person may remain.
Did DHS's appeal put the four-year rule into effect?
No. Filing the September 30 notice of appeal did not by itself suspend the district court's order. The final rule remains blocked nationwide unless a later district-court or appellate order changes that posture. Time-sensitive plans should still be checked against the current docket before filing or travel.
Should I use a form prepared for the postponed rule?
Do not assume that a form or instruction issued for the planned September 15 implementation remains usable. Check the current USCIS page for the accepted edition and filing instructions immediately before submission. The court order preserves the prior regulatory framework, but agency form notices can change as litigation continues.