Judge Blocks DHS Rule Ending Duration of Status Before It Takes Effect

By The Immigration Compass | Published 2026-09-15

A federal judge granted a nationwide injunction blocking the DHS rule that would have ended Duration of Status for F-1 and J-1 students, one day before its September 15 effective date. Here's what changed and what's still ahead.

If you've been anxiously watching the calendar count down to September 15, here's the news you've been waiting for: on September 14, a federal judge blocked the rule that would have ended Duration of Status for F-1 and J-1 students. For now, nothing changes.

On September 14, 2026, U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV granted a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking the Department of Homeland Security's rule that would have replaced Duration of Status with a fixed four-year admission period. The rule would have affected F-1 students, J-1 exchange visitors, and I visa holders (representatives of foreign media), since Duration of Status applies to all three categories. DHS and ICE are now barred from implementing or enforcing that rule while the lawsuit continues. The Duration of Status framework that's been in place since the 1970s stays exactly as it is, for now.

Is Duration of Status still in effect?

Yes. Duration of Status is still in effect. The rule that would have ended it was scheduled to take effect September 15, 2026, but a federal judge blocked it the day before, on September 14. F-1 and J-1 students continue to be admitted for Duration of Status, with no fixed end date on their I-94, exactly as it's always worked.

What actually happened

Back on August 18, 2026, a coalition led by NAFSA: Association of International Educators and the Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, joined by several universities' associations and labor unions, sued DHS over the rule. Their argument centered on the Administrative Procedure Act: they said DHS failed to adequately weigh the rule's costs and benefits, didn't meaningfully respond to the roughly 22,000 public comments it received, and didn't seriously consider less disruptive alternatives.

The case landed with Judge Saylor in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. After DHS filed its response, including a 57-page filing from Brett Shumate, assistant attorney general for the Department of Justice, arguing the current system was outdated and needed an overhaul to protect national security, both sides argued the motion on September 3. Saylor took time to consider it rather than ruling on the spot.

In his ruling, Saylor called the government's rationale for the change "exceptionally weak." He noted the current system has supported significant research and economic contributions, and warned that giving officials broad, unreviewable power to curtail a student's research raised a real due-process concern, that such power could be used to punish students or institutions whose views or research the government disfavored.

On September 14, just one day before the rule's scheduled effective date, he granted the injunction.

Is this a final decision?

No. This is a preliminary injunction, a temporary block while the case is being decided, not the final word on whether the rule is legal. The underlying lawsuit is still active. On September 30, DHS filed a notice of appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, formally challenging the injunction. The district court also held a status conference on October 2, 2026, a routine procedural check-in, not a ruling on the merits. On October 16, Judge Saylor ordered the government to produce the administrative record and set summary judgment briefing for late October and early November, while DHS's appeal moves forward at the First Circuit, where its opening brief is due November 9. Both tracks could take months to resolve, and it's possible DHS could still ultimately win the case later even though it lost this round.

What this means if you're on Duration of Status right now

• Nothing changed on September 15. Your admission is still tied to Duration of Status, the same as it's always been, not a fixed end date.
• You do not need to take any action because of this ruling. There's no new form to file, no new deadline to track.
• This is a preliminary injunction, not a final ruling. The underlying lawsuit is still active, and the judge specifically denied the plaintiffs' request to fully strike down the rule at this stage, without prejudice, meaning they can ask again later as the case moves forward.
• DHS has already filed a notice of appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging the injunction on September 30, 2026. The underlying case could also continue toward a full decision on the merits in the district court. Either path could take months.
• The injunction does not change the separate CPT guidance SEVP sent to schools in August 2026. That guidance is still in effect.

Does this change anything for CPT?

No. The injunction only blocks the Duration of Status rule. It does not cover the two broadcast messages the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) sent to Designated School Officials on August 12 and August 24, 2026, about Curricular Practical Training.

In those messages, SEVP said it has seen a rise in CPT authorizations that don't meet the regulations, especially ones where the training isn't an integral part of an established curriculum, and that it is increasing its scrutiny of CPT approvals. Because that guidance still applies, schools may continue to review CPT requests, including Day 1 CPT, more closely than they did before August.

If you're on CPT now or planning to use it, check with your school's DSO before making any changes to your program, your employer, or your start dates.

Why the judge blocked it

A preliminary injunction is a court's way of hitting pause while it works through a case, based on an early read that the side asking for it is likely to win and that real harm would happen if the rule took effect in the meantime. Judge Saylor's comments at the hearing suggest he found DHS's justification for the specific four-year cutoff weak, and that the agency hadn't genuinely engaged with the public comments it received before finalizing the rule. That's exactly the kind of gap the Administrative Procedure Act is designed to catch.

None of this means DHS's underlying authority to set admission periods is settled one way or the other. It means DHS didn't show enough, yet, to justify letting this particular version of the rule take effect while its legality is still being argued.

Why this case matters beyond the legal technicalities

Saylor's ruling leaned heavily on how central international students already are to US research and higher education. He cited enrollment figures for Boston-area graduate programs specifically: 28% of students at Boston University, 38% in Harvard's Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, over 40% at MIT, and just over 56% at Northeastern. The plaintiffs, including the Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration and the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts, argued the rule would be especially damaging to doctoral programs, which typically take more than five years to complete.

The numbers already in motion are real, even before the rule ever took effect. The Common App reported a 10% drop in international applications this admissions cycle, with doctoral program applications specifically down 21%. NAFSA's own economic analysis projected the rule would cost Massachusetts $284 million, the third-highest state-level impact in the country.

DHS pushed back publicly after the ruling, characterizing the reaction as overblown and standing by the rule as a response to visa fraud and abuse of student status. This is a genuinely contested policy question, not a settled one, and reasonable people land on different sides of how to balance fraud prevention against the disruption a hard four-year cap would cause. What's not contested is the legal question in front of Judge Saylor: whether DHS followed the right process in getting there, and for now, he's said it didn't.

What we're watching next

DHS has already moved: on September 30, 2026, it filed a notice of appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals (case 26-2112), formally challenging the injunction. The appeal does not put the rule into effect, and the district court's order stays in place while it proceeds. At the First Circuit, the government's opening brief is due November 9, 2026 and the plaintiffs' response is due December 9, 2026, after which the government has 10 days to reply.

The district court case is moving on its own track. At the October 2 status conference, the government said it plans to ask the First Circuit to expedite its appeal and indicated it wants the district court case paused in the meantime, while the plaintiffs asked the court to move toward a prompt final judgment so the issues could proceed together. On October 16, Judge Saylor ordered the government to produce the administrative record, the documents DHS relied on in making the rule, by October 23. Both sides may file supplemental summary judgment briefs by October 26, with replies due November 2.

The next dates to watch are November 2, when the summary judgment replies are due, and November 9, when DHS's opening brief is due at the First Circuit. From here, a few things could happen: the district court could rule on summary judgment, which would go to the merits of whether the rule is lawful, the First Circuit could rule on DHS's appeal, or DHS could go back to the drawing board and attempt to issue a revised rule that addresses the gaps the judge flagged. Separately, Democratic lawmakers in the Senate and House are pursuing a repeal of the rule through the Congressional Review Act, a legislative path independent of the litigation.

For the fuller breakdown of what the original rule would have changed, including the CPT and OPT provisions it also touched, see our earlier post. It's still useful for understanding what was at stake. Just keep in mind that the rule's own CPT and OPT changes are on hold along with the rest of the rule, while SEVP's August CPT guidance is separate and still in effect.