A major legal battle is now underway over the future of international student admissions in the United States.
A coalition of educational organizations and unions — including NAFSA, the Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, the American Federation of Teachers, and the UAW — filed a lawsuit in the federal district court of Massachusetts, alleging that the new regulation replacing duration of status admissions with fixed admission periods for F-1 foreign students, J-1 exchange visitors, I representatives of foreign information media, and their dependents violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The case is Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al., 1:26-cv-13799 (D. Mass., filed Aug. 18, 2026).
What the Rule Changes
On July 17, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security published a final rule replacing the longstanding "Duration of Status" (D/S) framework for F-1 international students and J-1 exchange visitors with fixed admission periods of no more than four years.
The rule also changes the admission framework for representatives of foreign media in I status by imposing fixed periods of admission.
Since the late 1970s, the United States admitted F-1 students, J-1 exchange visitors, and I-1 representatives of foreign media for a "duration of status." Instead of assigning an expiration date on Form I-94, the government enters "D/S" in the box labeled "Admit Until Date," and students remain in the U.S. if they maintain full-time enrollment and otherwise comply with the requirements of their status.
Under the new rule, beginning September 15, F and J nonimmigrants will receive admission periods based on their program end dates, subject to a maximum of four years, while other nonimmigrants will receive admission periods of 240 days.
Anyone who needs additional time to complete a Ph.D., complete Optional Practical Training, or remain in the United States because their program end date falls after the cutoff must request an extension of stay by filing Form I-539 — a process requiring applicants to pay a fee, submit biometrics, and potentially attend an interview.
The Legal Challenge
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, 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.
Plaintiffs argue the rule is "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. They contend DHS's justifications, such as national security, rely on weak anecdotes and that the agency disregarded significant public comments.
The plaintiffs include the Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, NAFSA: Association of International Educators, the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts, the American Federation of Teachers, The NewsGuild-CWA, the United Auto Workers, and unions representing graduate employees and other university workers.
The lawsuit asks the court to stay and vacate the rule, or prevent its enforcement against the plaintiffs and their members while the case proceeds.
Court Timeline Set
On August 19, Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV issued an order setting the briefing schedule and a hearing date. The defendant's response is due August 31, 2026, and an in-person motion hearing is scheduled for September 9, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 1
— just six days before the rule's effective date.
DHS Defends the Rule
DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin has argued that "for nearly half a century, the outdated 'duration of status' system has compromised national security and created an environment ripe for immigration fraud."
DHS said that 2,100 international students who entered the U.S. between 2000 and 2010 still held an active F visa as of April 2025. However, that is a tiny fraction of overall student visa holders, who numbered roughly 1.6 million in 2024, per agency data.
The primary argument DHS offers is that the final rule will enhance national security — using the phrase 176 times in the Federal Register document. DHS also argues the rule will reduce overstays and other immigration violations. However, as the National Foundation for American Policy noted in its comment to the proposed rule, analysts do not find the national security justification to be credible.
Revised USCIS Forms Add Urgency
Separately,
on September 15, 2026, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will publish revised editions of Form I-539, Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status, and Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization. The forms have been revised to align with the recently published final rule.
There is no grace period for the revised editions because USCIS says they are necessary to apply the final rule. USCIS is providing preview versions to help filers prepare.
USCIS will reject an application submitted on or after September 15 if it uses an earlier edition of either form.
This means that even as the lawsuit plays out, applicants and institutions must prepare for a hard cutoff on form editions with no room for error.
Economic Stakes Are Enormous
The rule arrives at a time when international student enrollment is already under pressure.
International students contributed nearly $55 billion to the U.S. economy in 2024, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce, and supported more than 355,000 jobs across the United States, according to NAFSA.
In the fall 2025 semester, the tally of new international students studying in the U.S. sank 17%, according to a fall snapshot from the U.S. Department of State and the Institute of International Education.
NAFSA and JB International have published research for Fall 2025 showing a loss of more than $1.1 billion and nearly 23,000 jobs
linked to enrollment declines — even before the duration of status rule takes effect.
Notably, DHS itself concedes the rule could cause international student enrollment to decline.
What This Means for International Students and Institutions
The practical ramifications of the rule, if it takes effect as scheduled, are significant:
- Ph.D. students and long-term scholars whose programs exceed four years will need to file I-539 extension applications, pay fees, submit biometrics, and potentially attend interviews — all while hoping their extensions are approved under what plaintiffs describe as an arbitrary "compelling academic reason" standard.
- Universities and colleges will face dramatically increased administrative burdens tracking fixed admission periods and advising students on extension requirements.
- OPT and STEM OPT applicants must use the new edition of Form I-765 starting September 15, with no transition window for the old form.
- Current students already in the U.S. will see their D/S designation replaced, creating uncertainty about the transition.
What Comes Next
With the September 9 hearing set just days before the September 15 effective date, the court's decision on the preliminary injunction motion will be pivotal. If the court grants the injunction, the D/S framework would remain in place while the case proceeds. If not, the rule takes effect as planned, and the revised forms become mandatory.
International students, Designated School Officials, and immigration practitioners should monitor this case closely and prepare for both scenarios. Those with pending or upcoming filings on Forms I-539 or I-765 should verify they are using the correct edition for the date of submission.
The immigration attorneys at ClinchLaw are actively tracking these developments and are available to advise students, scholars, and sponsoring institutions on how to navigate these changes. Contact us for a consultation if you have questions about your specific situation.