Federal Court Halts DHS Rule Eliminating “Duration of Status”

At a Glance: A federal court has paused a new DHS rule that would have ended “duration of status” for international students and exchange visitors. The rule was set to start September 15, but for now, the old rules still apply, so you should not need to change anything. The pause is temporary, so talk to an immigration attorney before you travel or make any changes to your situation.

On September 14, 2026, the evening before the Department of Homeland Security’s “Elimination of Duration of Status” rule was scheduled to take effect, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction halting its implementation. The court’s decision in Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration v. DHS temporarily blocks the policy nationwide while litigation proceeds, preserving standard duration-of-status rules for international students, exchange visitors, and foreign media representatives for the time being. We previously covered the relevant rule in detail in our article The End of Duration of Status for Students (F-1) and Exchange Visitors (J-1).

Background on the Elimination of Duration of Status Final Rule for F, J, and I Visas

On July 17, 2026, DHS published a final rule changing the regulations governing F, J, and I visas. In the rule, DHS replaces the duration of status rule with a fixed period of stay, which, for F and J status, is four years or until the expiration of the program, whichever occurs earlier. F visa recipients below the graduate level would also not be allowed to transfer schools or change their program of study within their first year, barring extenuating circumstances, and the rule restricts graduate students from changing schools or programs at any point, barring extenuating circumstances. The rule also only allows F-1 visa holders to pursue subsequent programs at a higher education level, which prevents, for example, someone from obtaining a second master’s degree if the first master’s degree was obtained in the US utilizing an F-1 visa. The rule also requires F, J, and I nonimmigrants to file for an extension of status to remain in the United States past the fixed period, including when applying for OPT, and requires F and J visa holders who complete their program early to leave the country in 30 days.

What the Court Decided

A district court judge in the District of Massachusetts recently granted a partial preliminary injunction of the final rule, delaying its effective date until the conclusion of the litigation. This is a temporary order and could be appealed. The judge had serious concerns about the purported rationale of the rule, the lack of meaningful responses to significant public comments, and the lack of consideration of less restrictive alternatives. The judge stated, “The weakness of the connection between the rule and its purported rationales raises legitimate questions as to whether its real purpose is not to safeguard national security and protect our borders, but to achieve other, undisclosed, goals—such as, for example, asserting greater government control over academic institutions and the press.”

Why the Court Postponed the Rule

In the decision, the judge found that DHS failed to conduct a reasoned analysis of the costs and benefits of the final rule and ignored the “immense costs” of the restrictions of the rule, citing detailed survey data and the economic costs of declined enrollment in U.S. institutions. The judge also found that DHS failed to consider less restrictive alternatives to satisfy its proposed objectives. In addition, the judge found DHS failed to provide meaningful responses to significant comments, including how the final rule would likely deter international student enrollment, that the final rule would place the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage with other countries, suggestions of less burdensome alternatives, how the rule is incompatible with the realities of academic progression, and reliance costs. Importantly, the judge also found that DHS failed to show a rational connection between the final rule and its purported objectives of preventing fraud and protecting national security, noting DHS’ reasoning was based “almost entirely on a small handful of anecdotes, each of which involved incidents that the new rule would do nothing to prevent or even mitigate.”

The judge found that the plaintiffs in the case have easily made a showing of immediate irreparable harm from the final rule and that the harm is not speculative. Since the plaintiffs demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claims, and made a showing of irreparable harm if the rule is not enjoined, the court found the issuance of a preliminary injunction staying the operation of the rule was appropriate. However, at this stage, the judge stopped short of vacating the rule in its entirety. Instead, the court took a more cautious approach and postponed the effective date of the rule while the lawsuit is ongoing.

How We Can Help

We are monitoring proceedings closely and will share updates as official agency guidance is released.

If you have questions about how this ruling impacts your case, contact your attorneys at Global Immigration Legal Team. We are here to help you understand what it means for you.

Special thanks to our Associate Attorney Taylor S. Adams, Esq., for preparing this update.

This alert is for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.