A federal judge has stopped a sweeping new immigration rule from taking effect that would have placed fixed limits on how long many international students and exchange visitors may remain in the United States, preserving the existing system just hours before the change was scheduled to begin.

U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV of the District of Massachusetts issued the preliminary relief on Sept. 14 in a lawsuit brought by higher-education organizations and labor groups against the Department of Homeland Security. The regulation had been scheduled to take effect Sept. 15. The court’s order prevents DHS and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement from implementing the challenged framework while the litigation moves forward.

The immediate result is that the longstanding “duration of status,” or D/S, system remains in place. Under that framework, many F-1 academic students and J-1 exchange visitors are admitted without a specific calendar expiration date on their immigration record. Their authorized stay instead depends on maintaining lawful status, participating in an approved academic or exchange program and complying with other requirements associated with their classification.

DHS’s final rule, published in the Federal Register on July 17, would have replaced that system with fixed admission periods. For F and J nonimmigrants, the authorized period generally would have been based on the length of the academic or exchange program but could not exceed four years. Individuals needing additional time would have been required to seek an extension of stay from the federal government or, in some circumstances, leave the United States and seek readmission.

The regulation also contained changes extending beyond the four-year ceiling. It created new procedures for extensions of stay and imposed restrictions on certain school transfers and changes in educational objectives. Graduate-level F-1 students would have faced particularly significant limits on changing programs or transferring institutions, subject to specified exceptions. The rule also would have reduced the standard post-completion grace period for some F-1 students entering under the new system from 60 days to 30 days.

DHS argued that fixed admission dates would give immigration authorities additional opportunities to review whether students and exchange visitors were complying with the conditions of their status. In the final regulation, the department said the system would strengthen oversight, discourage fraud and abuse, improve enforcement of unlawful-presence rules and provide immigration officers with more regular opportunities to evaluate people who remain in the country for extended periods.

The department also pointed to the growth of international student and exchange populations and argued that admission for duration of status did not provide enough predetermined opportunities for direct federal review. DHS said the new system would bring F, J and certain foreign-media classifications closer to the fixed admission periods used for many other categories of temporary visitors.

Saylor, however, concluded at this stage of the case that the challengers had raised substantial Administrative Procedure Act problems. According to the court ruling described by Inside Higher Ed and the plaintiffs, DHS had not adequately answered important public comments, sufficiently considered less burdensome alternatives or demonstrated a rational connection between portions of the regulation and its national-security justification. The court emphasized that its role was to assess the legality of the agency’s process rather than substitute judicial policy preferences for those of the executive branch.

The lawsuit was filed Aug. 18 by a coalition that includes NAFSA: Association of International Educators, the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts, the American Federation of Teachers, graduate and auto-worker unions, and The NewsGuild-CWA. The organizations argued that the regulation would impose significant administrative costs and create uncertainty for students, universities, researchers and employees whose academic programs can extend beyond four years.

Doctoral education has been a central concern because many Ph.D. programs routinely require more than four years to complete. Universities also warned that additional immigration applications could complicate research schedules, dissertation work and funding arrangements. Under the existing D/S structure, students who need additional academic time generally work through their institution’s international office to extend the program information in the federal student-tracking system, assuming they continue to satisfy the applicable immigration requirements.

For universities, the injunction also pauses a significant administrative transition. International student offices across the country had spent weeks explaining the new admission rules, extension procedures, transfer restrictions and grace periods to students and faculty. Campus guidance from institutions including Arizona State University, the University of San Francisco and North Carolina State University was updated after the court ruling to state that the scheduled Sept. 15 changes would not take effect for now.

The litigation comes as international enrollment remains financially and academically important to U.S. higher education. The Institute of International Education reported 1.17 million international students at U.S. higher-education institutions in the 2024-25 academic year, representing about 6% of the college population. NAFSA has estimated that international students contributed nearly $43 billion to the U.S. economy and supported more than 355,000 jobs during that academic year.

A separate federal review had already raised another procedural question about the regulation. In an Aug. 4 report, the Government Accountability Office said the rule was classified as a major rule under the Congressional Review Act and that its stated Sept. 15 effective date did not provide the required 60-day delay measured from congressional receipt. The final DHS regulation acknowledged that its effective date could be adjusted depending on the congressional review process.

The Massachusetts ruling does not permanently erase the regulation. The court has postponed implementation while the case proceeds, and the broader legal challenge remains unresolved. A status conference is scheduled for Oct. 2, according to Inside Higher Ed. The federal government may continue defending the rule and could pursue further appellate review depending on subsequent proceedings.

For international students and universities, the practical position as of Sept. 15 is that the previously existing D/S framework continues to govern rather than the newly planned fixed-duration system. Students still must maintain their immigration status and satisfy existing academic, employment and reporting requirements. Universities are advising international students to monitor official campus and federal guidance because another court ruling, appeal or agency action could change the situation again.