Colleges and Unions Sue DHS Over Rule Ending Student Visa ‘Duration of Status’
(DHS photo by Andrew Jackson)
A coalition of higher-education organizations and labor unions sued the Trump administration on Tuesday to block a new federal rule that would replace the longstanding “duration of status” framework for international students, exchange visitors, and foreign journalists with fixed periods of admission.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, asks the court to vacate the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rule before its scheduled September 15 effective date. The plaintiffs argue the policy is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to federal immigration law.
The rule affects individuals in the F (student), J (exchange visitor), and I (foreign media) classifications. For decades, many such visa holders have been admitted for the duration of their authorized program or assignment, with their I-94 arrival records marked “D/S” (duration of status) rather than a specific departure date.
Under the new rule, F and J visa holders generally receive admission through the anticipated end date of their program, capped at four years plus 30 days. Foreign media representatives in I status are admitted for no more than 240 days. Those needing additional time must apply to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for an extension of stay.
The plaintiffs include the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, NAFSA: Association of International Educators, the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts, the American Federation of Teachers, various graduate-worker and auto-worker unions, and The NewsGuild-CWA.
They sued DHS, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, and acting ICE Director David Venturella in their official capacities.
The lawsuit argues that DHS failed to adequately account for the rule’s economic costs, including a projected decline in international enrollment and the resulting financial losses to colleges, research programs, and local economies.
DHS estimated at least $443 million in annual compliance and implementation costs, according to the complaint. The plaintiffs contend the department did not quantify what they describe as the much larger economic costs associated with fewer international students attending U.S. institutions, while also failing to assign a monetary value to the claimed national-security and anti-fraud benefits of the rule.
The complaint notes that international students contributed $42.9 billion to the U.S. economy and supported more than 355,000 jobs during the 2024–25 academic year. It also cites federal data showing that more than 1.8 million F-1 students and over 514,000 J-1 exchange visitors were present in the United States in 2024.
Beyond fixed admission periods, the regulation reduces the post-completion grace period for F-1 students from 60 days to 30 days, according to the lawsuit.
It also restricts academic mobility. The complaint states that the rule bars graduate students from changing academic programs, limits transfers and changes in educational objectives, and generally prevents F-1 students from starting a new program at the same or a lower educational level after completing a previous program.
The plaintiffs say those provisions could disrupt common academic pathways, including doctoral programs that routinely extend beyond four years, students who transfer because an adviser moves institutions, and students who leave a Ph.D. program with a master’s degree.
They also warn that F and J visa holders face additional filing costs, administrative paperwork, and uncertainty. The complaint highlights that a Form I-539 application to extend status costs $420 or more and that students could lose lawful status due to late or incomplete filings, even if they remain otherwise eligible to study.
The coalition argues that directing visa holders to file extension applications adds hundreds of thousands of cases to USCIS’s workload.
The complaint cites concerns raised during rulemaking that the agency already faced an 11.3 million-case backlog in mid-2025. It notes that commenters estimated the policy could increase Form I-539 filings by 163%, while DHS failed to provide a detailed operational plan for processing the additional volume.
The plaintiffs contend that the existing Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) already provides the government ongoing access to information regarding F and J visa holders—including program enrollment, address changes, completion dates, and status violations.
They argue DHS relied on isolated examples of suspected fraud or national-security risks rather than evidence of a systemwide problem. The complaint points out that DHS cited fewer than 2,100 people who entered under F-1 status between 2000 and 2010 and remained in active student status as of April 2025, which plaintiffs characterize as a tiny fraction of the affected population.
The lawsuit also challenges DHS’s 32-day public comment period for the proposed rule, which was published on August 28, 2025. The plaintiffs assert that the period was too short for a major regulation affecting millions of individuals, thousands of educational institutions, and more than 1,200 exchange visitor program sponsors.
They note that the agency received nearly 22,000 comments and took nearly a year to issue the final rule on July 17. The final regulation is scheduled to take effect on September 15.
The lawsuit seeks a court order vacating the rule, staying its implementation, permanently enjoining its enforcement, and declaring it unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act.