Key Takeaways
- A federal judge issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking a DHS final rule that would have replaced the longstanding “duration of status” framework for F-1 students, J-1 exchange visitors and I visa holders.
- The court concluded that DHS likely failed to conduct a proper cost-benefit analysis, meaningfully consider less restrictive alternatives, or adequately respond to public comments raising concerns about enrollment deterrence and academic incompatibility.
- The injunction preserves the existing duration of status framework while litigation continues, with a status conference set for Oct. 2, 2026; employers, universities and exchange program sponsors should monitor the case for further developments that could revive or permanently vacate the rule.
On Sept. 14, 2026, a federal judge in Massachusetts postponed the effective date of a final rule issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that would limit the duration of student and work visas for international students (F visas), exchange visitors including researchers, professors and trainees (J visas), and foreign media representatives (I visas). The rule would affect approximately 1.2 million international students currently in the United States.
Under the regulatory framework in place before the final rule, F, J and I visas authorize holders to remain in the United States for the length of their program or assignment rather than for a fixed period. For instance, F visa holders are admitted for “duration of status,” permitting them to stay in the United States for their entire academic program. DHS uses the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) to maintain information regarding certain visa holders, including those enrolled at colleges and universities.
New DHS Final Rule
On July 17, 2026, DHS published its final rule, introducing significant changes to the Immigration and Nationality Act’s regulatory framework and to SEVIS. Some of the changes include:
- Fixed admission periods replace “duration of status.” The fixed period for F and J visas, held by international students, researchers and professors, is capped at four years, regardless of their academic program requirements. I visas, held by foreign press representatives, are capped at 240 days.
- Extension of stay. Any F, J or I visa holder needing time beyond the fixed admission period to complete their work or studies, including many Ph.D. and joint-degree students, must file a Form I-539 (Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status) with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Such extension of stay requests would be granted at USCIS’s discretion.
- Reduced departure/grace periods. The period F-1 students have to prepare to depart from the U.S. following completion of their course of study or post-completion practical training is reduced from 60 days to 30 days.
- New restrictions on school transfers and changes of major. The final rule limits the ability of undergraduate and graduate-level F-1 students to transfer schools or change their educational objective, except in limited circumstances.
- Employment authorization/Optional Practical Training (OPT) implications. The new framework under the final rule adds requirements for F-1 students seeking to maintain post-completion OPT or STEM OPT, potentially causing interruptions in work authorization and imposing additional burdens on employers.
During the notice and comment period, DHS received nearly 22,000 comments on the proposed rule. Commenters raised various concerns and proposed less restrictive alternatives, such as stricter monitoring for fraudulent requests using SEVIS.
Federal Court Injunction Granted
Before the final rule was set to take effect on Sept. 15, 2026, multiple plaintiffs filed suit, requesting a preliminary injunction to postpone its effective date. On Sept. 14, 2026, Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted the injunction, finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that the final rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by not following the APA’s rulemaking requirements.
Specifically, the court concluded that DHS (1) did not conduct a proper cost-benefit analysis when it ignored various costs of restricting visa holder academic enrollment, research, teaching and travel; (2) did not meaningfully consider alternatives to the rule (and dismissed comments offering reasonable alternatives); (3) did not respond to significant comments including many that raised the issues of the final rule’s deterrent effect on enrollment, incompatibility of the final rule with academic progression and the competitive disadvantage for the U.S. as a result of decreased international student enrollment; and (4) did not show a rational connection between the rule and its objectives of advancing national security and preventing fraud, in that it failed to clearly identify specific national security risks and relied on anecdotal evidence to claim the rule would mitigate fraud, abuse and visa overstays.
A status conference is set for Oct. 2, 2026, before Judge Saylor. Until the injunction is lifted, the framework that existed before publication of the final rule remains in effect.
McGuireWoods will continue to monitor the case and provide updates. For questions about this memorandum, the DHS final rule, the postponement or immigration regulation generally, contact the authors or a member of the firm’s Higher Education Enforcement & Regulatory Counseling Practice Group or Labor & Employment department.