NRI Pulse Staff Report
Washington, DC, September 24, 2026— A federal judge has blocked a Trump administration rule that would have ended the longstanding “duration of status” system for international students and replaced it with fixed periods of stay, delivering a significant reprieve to foreign students, researchers, exchange visitors and journalists in the United States.
U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV in Massachusetts issued the ruling on September 14, one day before the Department of Homeland Security rule was scheduled to take effect. The order postpones implementation while a legal challenge brought by higher education and labor organizations moves forward.
The rule, finalized by DHS in July, would generally have limited F visas for international students and J visas for exchange visitors to a maximum admission period of four years. Foreign journalists entering on I visas would generally have been admitted for no more than 240 days at a time. Those needing additional time would have been required to apply to DHS for an extension of stay.
That would mark a major departure from the system that has governed international students for nearly five decades.
Under the current “duration of status,” or D/S, system, international students generally may remain in the country for the length of their authorized academic programs and related practical training as long as they maintain lawful status. Their permission to remain is therefore tied to their academic status rather than a predetermined expiration date requiring a separate extension application.
Saylor found that DHS was likely to have violated requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act when adopting the new rule. He said the department had relied on “exceptionally weak” rationales and had not adequately addressed concerns raised about the policy or considered less burdensome alternatives.
DHS had argued that the duration-of-status system does not give immigration authorities enough predetermined opportunities to verify that students and exchange visitors continue to comply with the requirements of their immigration status. The department said fixed admission periods would strengthen oversight and help address fraud, abuse and unlawful presence.
The judge was particularly critical of the government’s national security justification.
“The government’s contention that the rule is necessary to safeguard national security borders on the absurd,” Saylor wrote, according to the court decision, finding that the incidents cited by the government were largely ones the new rule would not have prevented.
The ruling potentially affects a large international population. About 1.6 million people currently hold F visas and another 500,000 hold J visas, according to figures cited in the case.
Saylor also pointed to the potential impact on American universities, particularly institutions with large international graduate student populations. He wrote that implementation could lead to declining international enrollment and substantial costs for universities, and said the resulting damage to the U.S. higher education system and economy was likely to be “catastrophic.”
The case has particular relevance for Indian students, who constitute a major segment of the international student population in the United States.
The rule also extended beyond students. J status covers a broad range of exchange visitors, including scholars and researchers, while I status is used by representatives of foreign media working in the United States. The new regulation would have required many of them to periodically seek government approval to extend their stays rather than remain for the duration of their authorized activities.
The administration has defended the change. DHS General Counsel James Percival criticized the court’s ruling and argued that the existing system allows some foreign students to remain in student status for unusually long periods. DHS’s final rule similarly cited examples of students and exchange visitors remaining in those classifications for decades as evidence of weaknesses in the current system.
For now, however, the nearly 50-year-old duration-of-status framework remains in place.
The court has not permanently invalidated the DHS rule. Saylor’s order postpones its effective date while the lawsuit proceeds, leaving the ultimate legality of the administration’s proposed system to be resolved as the case continues.
