One day before the rule was set to take effect, a federal judge in Boston halted a Department of Homeland Security rule that would have upended how international students are allowed to stay in the United States.
On September 14, 2026, U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV postponed the effective date of the rule under Section 705 of the APA (Administrative Procedure Act) and preliminarily enjoined DHS from taking any further action to implement it. The rule would have replaced the “duration of status” (D/S) framework with fixed admission periods.
In this article, we break down what the ruling means for the legal case, for universities, and for the many international students currently navigating their visa status in the U.S.
What is “duration of status” (D/S), and how does it work?
D/S is the decades-old framework the U.S. has used to manage how long F-1 (and most J-1) visa holders can stay in the country. Instead of giving students a fixed calendar end date at the border, D/S ties authorized stay to maintaining status and to the program dates recorded in SEVIS and on the I-20. Under D/S:
- The student’s I-94 shows “D/S” instead of a specific “admit until” date.
- The student’s authorized stay is not governed by a fixed expiration date, but by continued maintenance of F-1 status.
- As long as a student is enrolled full-time (or has an approved reduced course load), continues to make normal academic progress, and holds a valid, unexpired I-20, they remain in D/S for the duration of their program, even if it runs longer than four years.
The student’s DSO (international office) manages this through SEVIS: extending the I-20’s program end date if required, handling level changes (e.g., bachelor’s to master’s) and school transfers. These updates are made without the student filing anything with USCIS. In short, the “clock” is the SEVIS/I-20 record, not a fixed admission date.
What did the judge rule?
On September 14, 2026, U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV issued a memorandum and order granting the plaintiffs’ motion in part. He found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their APA claims, that immediate irreparable harm would result if the rule took effect, and that the balance of equities and the public interest favored relief.
Section 705 of the APA allows a reviewing court to postpone the effective date of an agency rule while litigation is pending. That is the authority used by the judge, alongside a preliminary injunction barring DHS and ICE from taking further steps to implement the rule.
Is this a nationwide injunction, or does it only apply to the plaintiffs?
The relief operates nationwide, and the injunction bars DHS and ICE from implementing the rule anywhere in the country while the litigation proceeds and remains in place for everyone - not just the named plaintiffs.
Is this a final ruling, or could it change?
This is preliminary relief, not final judgment. This means that the judge has paused the rule pending further litigation, instead of invalidating it altogether. He also denied requests for immediate vacatur (permanent cancellation) and summary judgment, which means plaintiffs can renew those requests as the case develops further. DHS can appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals and could seek an emergency stay of the injunction.
Why did the judge say DHS violated the Administrative Procedure Act?
Judge Saylor identified three main APA deficiencies:
- Failure to weigh costs and benefits: DHS did not meaningfully weigh the economic and academic costs of the rule against its claimed benefits, which the court found were essentially unquantified.
- Inadequate response to public comments: DHS allowed what the judge called an “exceptionally short, and barely legal, 32-day period” for comment, received roughly 22,000 comments, and issued a final rule that closely tracked the proposal without substantively engaging with the objections raised.
- Lack of rational connection between the rule and its stated goals: DHS cited national security and fraud prevention as the key concerns, but the judge found those justifications “exceptionally weak” and largely built on anecdotal incidents that the rule wouldn’t have actually prevented. The judge also rejected DHS’s attempt to use national security framing to avoid APA scrutiny by stating the following: “The use of such labels does not, however, give DHS license to ignore its statutory obligations.”
Did DHS fail to consider alternatives to ending D/S?
Yes. The court concluded that DHS did not consider reasonable and more flexible alternatives before discarding the entire D/S system. Specifically, the court pointed to these alternatives to a blanket 4-year cap:
- Targeted enforcement against specific patterns of fraud
- Enhanced oversight of specific schools or programs
- Narrower duration caps or extension criteria instead of a direct 4-year limit
The court also concluded that DHS hadn’t meaningfully weighed the economic and academic impact of the rule before adopting it. Failing to weigh the multi-dimensional impacts could lead to diverse consequences, some of which are as follows:
- Drops in international student enrollment
- Disruption to research and teaching at U.S. universities
- Negative impact on foreign journalists’ ability to work in the U.S.
During the rulemaking process, DHS did not adequately address multiple concerns raised, including the following:
- University concerns about harm to enrollment and research
- Criticisms of how a 4-year cap would clash with degree structures, specifically those that run longer, such as PhD programs
- Medical and graduate-training groups’ warnings that many J-1 residency and fellowship programs exceed four years
- Media organizations’ objections to the 240-day cap for I-visa journalists
The judge emphasized that the APA requires agencies to actually engage with significant comments, not just collect and log them, and found DHS fell short of that standard.
What “national security” justification did DHS offer?
DHS justified the rule primarily on grounds of national security and preventing visa fraud or abuse, and argued that framing should shield the rule from ordinary APA scrutiny. The court found that the national security and fraud prevention rationales were “exceptionally weak,” noting that DHS relied almost entirely on a small handful of anecdotes involving incidents the rule would do nothing to prevent or mitigate. As the court put it, the connection between the rule and the problems it purports to address is “exceptionally attenuated.”
The court also rejected the idea that invoking “national security” lets an agency skip its normal statutory obligations, writing, “The use of such labels does not, however, give DHS license to ignore its statutory obligations.”
What would the blocked rule have changed for F-1, J-1, and I-visa holders?
The rule would have replaced D/S with a fixed “admit until date” (AUD) stamped on the I-94, generally set to the program end date on the I-20 but capped at four years, plus a 30-day departure period.
It would also have:
- Cut the F-1 post-completion grace period from 60 days to 30 days
- Tightened restrictions on changing majors, changing degree levels, and transferring schools
- Required many students to file an extension of stay application with USCIS (Form I-539), with a filing fee and biometrics, once they approached their fixed admission date, even if their program legitimately requires more time
If the rule survives litigation and takes effect, it would hit hardest the students whose programs run beyond four years. This includes PhD candidates, students completing a second degree, and J-1 medical residents and fellows. The process that would follow would require students to file a formal extension of stay with USCIS before their fixed admission date expires, rather than having their DSO extend the I-20 under D/S. In practice that means additional fees, processing delays, and the risk of falling out of status if a filing is late or denied.
Likewise, many J-1 exchange visitors would also be subject to the same general 4-year cap as F-1 students. This would replace their open-ended D/S admission with a fixed period. If the rule gets implemented, I-visa holders, who are foreign journalists, would face a much shorter fixed admission period of just 240 days. This would turn out to be a drastic change from the flexibility they have under D/S. I nonimmigrants holding passports issued by the People’s Republic of China (excluding Hong Kong and Macau SAR passports) would have been limited to 90 days.
How have universities responded to the ruling?
International offices have moved quickly to tell students that the fixed 4-year cap and related procedures are not in effect and that existing D/S rules continue to govern.
More broadly, higher-education groups framed the ruling as a major reprieve, stating that the blocked rule could lead to the following repercussions:
- Reduced international enrollment
- Disrupted long-term research projects and PhD programs
- Making the U.S. less competitive for attracting global talent
What we have to say
Currently, international students, universities, and international journalists can operate under their respective status quo.
Because the court has postponed the rule, none of its changes are in effect, although the ruling is preliminary.
Until the case is resolved, students and universities must consistently monitor updates from their DSOs and trusted immigration sources, and ensure timely program extensions through their DSO, since the rules governing how long students get to stay in the U.S. for their education are still in litigation.
