Judge Pauses Immigration Rule Restricting F-1 Students and J-1 Exchange Visitors
On September 14, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued an order postponing the effective date of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) final rule that would have eliminated the longstanding duration of status (“D/S”) framework for F students and J exchange visitors. The order made other significant changes to the rules governing persons in these statuses. As a result, the rule did not take effect on its scheduled date of September 15, 2026, and F-1 students and J-1 exchange visitors continue to benefit from the existing D/S framework until there is a final determination on the merits of the case. However, the district court’s decision is temporary and may be reversed by the court of appeals or U.S. Supreme Court without advance notice.
Background
As discussed in our prior alert, DHS’s July 17, 2026 final rule would have represented the most significant restructuring of the F-1 and J-1 admission framework in several decades. Among other changes, the rule would have replaced duration of status with fixed periods of admission generally not exceeding four years; required individuals needing additional time to complete their educational or exchange programs to file Form I-539 extension of stay applications with USCIS; reduced the F-1 post-completion grace period from 60 days to 30 days; and imposed significant new restrictions on transfers between institutions and progression between educational levels.
A coalition of higher education and labor organizations challenged the rule in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration v. Department of Homeland Security. The plaintiffs contended, among other things, that DHS violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in promulgating the rule and sought relief preventing it from taking effect while the litigation proceeded.
On September 14, one day before the scheduled effective date, U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV granted the plaintiffs’ request to postpone implementation of the rule under Section 705 of the APA.
The Court’s Decision
In granting preliminary relief, the court concluded that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on their claim that DHS’s adoption of the final rule was arbitrary and capricious under the APA. The court identified four principal deficiencies in DHS’ rulemaking.
Costs and benefits. The court found that DHS had failed to adequately assess the rule’s potential economic and educational costs, including its effects on international enrollment, universities, and research.
Consideration of alternatives. The court found that DHS had failed to meaningfully consider less burdensome alternatives proposed by commenters, including enhanced monitoring and more targeted measures to address fraud and national security concerns.
Response to significant comments. The court found that DHS had failed to adequately address significant comments concerning the rule’s practical consequences, including its effects on academic programs and the administrative burdens it would impose.
Relationship to DHS’s stated objectives. Finally, the court found that DHS had not adequately explained how the rule’s restrictions, including the four-year admission limit, furthered its stated fraud-prevention and national security objectives.
The court separately found that implementation of the rule would cause immediate and irreparable harm to students, universities, and other affected parties, and that the balance of equities and public interest favored preliminary relief.
Of particular importance, the court did not vacate the final rule or enter a final judgment on the merits. Instead, it postponed the effective date of the rule under Section 705 of the APA while the litigation proceeds. The court applied that relief nationwide, concluding that limiting the order to the plaintiffs would require parallel regulatory regimes and create substantial confusion for institutions and students.
What Remains in Effect
Because the court acted before the September 15 effective date, the final rule did not become operative. The prior regulatory framework therefore remains in place while the court’s order remains effective.
F-1 students and J-1 exchange visitors should continue to be admitted for duration of status rather than for a fixed period of admission of up to four years. They are not required to file Form I-539 solely because additional time is required to complete an academic or exchange program, and the existing framework governing program extensions through designated school officials remains in place.
Likewise, the new restrictions on transfers between institutions and changes of educational level did not take effect. The prohibition on graduate-level transfers and changes of educational objective, the requirement that students generally progress only to a higher educational level, and the 24-month aggregate limitation on language training are not presently operative.
The F-1 post-completion grace period also remains 60 days rather than the 30-day period contemplated by the final rule. Similarly, the transition provisions described in our July 28 alert, including the provisions governing conversion from duration of status to fixed admission periods and the related Form I-539 requirements, have not been triggered.
What This Means for Our Clients
For the present, F-1 students, J-1 exchange visitors, and their employers should continue to operate under the rules that were in effect before September 15, 2026. Individuals who had been preparing for a fixed Form I-94 expiration date, a Form I-539 extension of stay filing, or the new restrictions on transfers or educational progression should not assume that those requirements currently apply.
The court’s order is preliminary, however, and does not finally invalidate the DHS rule. The litigation will continue in the district court, and the government may seek review of the order in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit or, potentially, the U.S. Supreme Court. A higher court could stay or reverse the district court’s order, and the final rule could therefore become effective at a later date.
Employers and affected F-1 and J-1 nonimmigrants should accordingly continue to monitor developments, particularly before making decisions that depend upon the continued availability of duration of status, transfers between institutions, or enrollment in an additional program at the same educational level.
We will provide more information as it becomes available.