In a dramatic eleventh-hour ruling, a federal court has preserved the immigration framework that more than a million international students and exchange visitors in the United States depend on — at least for now.
On September 14, 2026, U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Department of Homeland Security from implementing its rule that would have ended Duration of Status (D/S) for F-1 students, one day before the rule was scheduled to take effect.
The court postponed the effective date of the final rule on a nationwide basis rather than limiting relief to the named plaintiffs.
The Case: Presidents' Alliance v. DHS
In Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 1:26-cv-13799, a coalition of plaintiffs, including NAFSA, the Presidents' Alliance, and several labor unions, challenged the DHS final rule replacing the D/S framework with fixed periods of admission for F-1 international students and J-1 exchange visitors.
The coalition included 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.
The complaint was filed on August 18, 2026, alongside a motion for preliminary injunction.
The preliminary injunction hearing was held on September 3, 2026.
Just eleven days later, Judge Saylor issued his ruling.
What the Court Found
Judge Saylor granted preliminary relief after concluding the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their Administrative Procedure Act claims. In the court's view, DHS likely failed to conduct a reasoned analysis of the rule's costs and benefits, seriously consider less burdensome alternatives, adequately address significant public comments, and explain how fixed periods of admission would further the agency's stated fraud-prevention and national-security objectives.
Specifically, the court found that DHS failed to adequately demonstrate how the rule would meaningfully advance its stated objectives, including enhancing national security, reducing fraud, and preventing overstays. The court also determined that DHS did not sufficiently evaluate the rule's significant economic and practical impacts on affected stakeholders.
The court found that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in showing that the rule is arbitrary and capricious and that allowing it to take effect would cause immediate and irreparable harm.
Importantly,
the judge cited concerns about administrative complexity and the impracticality of operating multiple regulatory frameworks for institutions and students across the country
— a key reason for extending the injunction nationwide rather than limiting it to the named plaintiffs.
What the Blocked Rule Would Have Changed
DHS published the final rule on July 17, 2026, which would have replaced the longstanding Duration of Status framework for F-1 students, J-1 exchange visitors, and I visa holders with fixed periods of admission.
The changes were sweeping:
-
F-1 and J-1 visa holders would generally have been limited to four-year admission periods, while I visa holders (foreign media representatives) would have been limited to 240-day admission periods.
-
The rule shortened the departure grace period for F and J visa holders from sixty days to thirty days and imposed a modified unlawful presence framework — one based on failure to timely file an extension-of-stay application rather than a formal USCIS finding of a status violation or an immigration judge's removal order.
-
The rule also imposed restrictions on certain school transfers, changes in educational objectives, and pursuit of additional degrees.
-
Individuals needing additional time would have been required to file extension of stay applications with USCIS.
What Remains in Effect — and What Doesn't
As long as the injunction remains in effect, the following provisions will not apply: Form I-539 extension-of-stay requirements for students who need additional time beyond a fixed admission date; the 240-day limit on continued employment while an extension-of-stay application is pending; restrictions on beginning a second program at the same or a lower educational level; restrictions on transfers and program changes at the graduate level; and the shortened departure period.
However, the injunction has limits.
The injunction does not affect the separate Curricular Practical Training guidance issued by the Student and Exchange Visitor Program in August 2026, which continues to restrict the availability of CPT, including Day 1 CPT.
Practical Implications for International Students
For F-1 students, J-1 exchange visitors, and their dependents, the immediate impact is reassuring: the status quo holds.
-
Students remain under current Duration of Status (D/S) rules. Legal stay continues to be tied to maintaining status and the end date on the current I-20 or DS-2019. F-1 students continue to have a 60-day grace period following the completion of their program.
-
When entering the U.S., eligible F-1 and J-1 travelers should still expect to receive "D/S" on their I-94 record.
-
Standard filing windows (such as the 60-day post-program filing window for F-1 OPT) and procedures remain unchanged.
-
Students and exchange visitors generally do not need to seek extensions solely because their programs exceed four years. Current rules governing F-1 school transfers, program changes, and practical training remain unchanged.
The Broader Stakes
The rule's potential impact extended far beyond administrative procedure.
Brookings estimated the rule would trigger an enrollment decline of roughly one-third of international students in U.S. higher education institutions, in the long term reducing the stock of overall high-skill STEM workers in the U.S. by 6.2%.
That means less productivity for the U.S. economy as a whole, stemming from foregone innovation, entrepreneurship, and specialization. Economists have quantified the effect, finding the loss of high-skill STEM workers could be expected to reduce the wages of U.S. workers with college by about 0.4% per year (an annual loss of around $42 billion), and the wages of workers without college by 0.2% per year (an annual loss of about $13 billion).
The plaintiffs noted the rule was already affecting institutions and students, with colleges reporting that some international students had withdrawn their fall 2026 enrollment out of concern about the end of Duration of Status, while other institutions reported that applications from international students declined sharply.
What Comes Next
The litigation is still ongoing, and the court has not yet issued a final decision on whether the regulation is lawful. DHS has stated that it disagrees with the court's ruling and may continue defending the rule in court.
The government can be expected to appeal.
The ruling does not necessarily mark the end of the legal fight. The case can continue, and further court action could affect whether or when the rule ultimately takes effect.
For now, however, international students, exchange visitors, and the institutions that serve them can breathe a measured sigh of relief. The Duration of Status framework that has governed international student admissions since the 1970s remains intact — but the legal battle over its future is far from over.
Clinch Law Firm will continue to monitor developments in this case and provide updates as the litigation progresses. Students and scholars affected by this rule should continue to maintain their immigration status and consult with a qualified immigration attorney regarding their individual circumstances.