A coalition of higher education associations and labor unions sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on August 18, 2026. The coalitions seeks a block on the final rule that eliminates “duration of status” for international students, exchange visitors, and foreign media representatives. The case, Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration v. DHS, asked the court to vacate its decision by September 15, 2026.
What Duration of Status has Meant for Four Decades
Since the late 1970s, the United States admitted F-1 students, J-1 exchange visitors, and I-1 representatives of foreign media for a “duration of status” (D/S). Instead of assigning an expiration date on Form I-94, the government enters “D/S” in the box labeled “Admit Until Date.” Students remain in the U.S. if they maintain full-time enrollment and otherwise comply with the requirements of their F-1 status. J-1 exchange visitors may remain as long as they actively participate in the program for which they received admission. I-1 representatives may remain as long as they continue working for an eligible foreign media company. A school official for F-1 students or a responsible officer for J-1 exchange visitors may extend the program end date when the student’s studies or the exchange visitor’s research continues by updating SEVIS. There is no need to file an extension request with USCIS.
That flexibility is what the Final Rule does away with.
What the Final Rule Changes
On July 17, 2026, DHS issued the Final Rule, which largely adopts the rule proposed last August. Beginning September 15, F and J nonimmigrants will receive admission periods based on their program end dates, subject to a maximum of four years. Other nonimmigrants will receive admission periods of 240 days. Anyone who needs additional time to complete a PhD, complete Optional Practical Training, or remain in the United States because their program end date falls after the arbitrary cutoff date must request an extension of stay by filing Form I-539. The process requires applicants to pay a fee, submit biometrics, and potentially attend an interview. Meanwhile, applicants may have to put their lives on hold while DHS applies an arbitrary “compelling academic reason” standard that applicants cannot appeal.
The rule goes beyond these restrictions on consecutive fixed terms. It also reduces the F-1 grace period after completion from 60 days to 30, prohibits graduate students from changing academic programs entirely, and forever prevents any F-1 student who has completed one degree from pursuing another degree at the same or lower level, even when there is a clear professional motivation to undertake both degrees consecutively
The Case against the Rule
Filed by the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, NAFSA, the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts, the American Federation of Teachers, a local of Brown graduate workers union known as the NewsGuild-CWA, and the UAW and one of its locals in Massachusetts, the complaint does not challenge DHS’s power to impose regulations on nonimmigrant visas. But it says the agency egregiously abused its discretion in how it went about doing so, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
At the heart of the complaint is DHS’s own cost-benefit analysis of the rule. While DHS said that the rule would impose at least $443 million in annual direct compliance costs, it declined to estimate the largest “cost” of all: lost international student enrollment. Survey data included in the record showed that up to 47 percent of currently enrolled international students said they would not have originally come to the U.S. if a fixed-term system were in place. And immigration-focused economists found that the resulting downstream impacts would translate into an annual economic loss of $72 billion to $145 billion after a decade. DHS dismissed this as “speculative,” and produced no numbers of its own to dispute it, according to the complaint. That’s not a cost-benefit analysis, the complaint argues. It’s an assumption masquerading as one.
Details of the Plaintiff’s Case
The complaint challenges DHS’s stated rationales for this rule too, namely national security and preventing fraud. Neither is persuasive: DHS’s examples of national security threats were all immigrants who had been in the country for less than four years, so a four-year stop-time wouldn’t have triggered at all. And the evidence of fraud DHS cites amounts to instances of students staying enrolled beyond DHS’s arbitrary deadline out of over 1.5 million active student records nationwide DHS could identify only thousands of “outliers” without any evidence that any of these students actually committed fraud other than remaining enrolled long enough to learn.
On top of that, plaintiffs say DHS didn’t even bother to consider the rule responsibly. More than 21,000 people submitted comments on the proposed rule. Most commenters opposed the rule and raised substantive objections. DHS ignored those objections and responded with “summary” statements. The agency failed to address the data and alternatives that commenters offered. Some commenters suggested using SEVIS to target actual fraud risks. Others urged DHS to tie admission periods to students’ program lengths. Instead, DHS proposed an arbitrary timeline. The proposed rule also allowed only 32 days for public comments. That period fell well below the standard 60-day period. The rule affects more than two million nonimmigrants each year.
Lastly, the complaint says DHS’s prohibition on second degrees at the same or lower level than the first is simply beyond DHS’s legal authority. Nowhere in the INA’s definition of what makes someone an F-1 student does it mention where their intended degree is relative to their current degree, and DHS acknowledges that there are “legitimate cases” where a student might want to pursue the same degree level again. Plaintiffs argue that DHS cannot impose a categorical restriction that Congress did not include in the statute.
What Plaintiffs are Asking For
The lawsuit seeks a stay of the rule under APA Section 705, a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement against plaintiffs’ members, and ultimately a declaration that the rule is unlawful and must be set aside. Given the September 15 effective date, expect a ruling on the stay and injunction request well before then.
Why this Matters for F, J, and I nonimmigrants Right Now
Nothing has changed yet. Duration of status remains in effect while this litigation plays out, and the rule doesn’t take effect until September 15 unless a court intervenes first. Still, students, exchange visitors, and their designated school officials should be paying close attention to how this case develops, particularly anyone whose program is expected to run past four years or who was planning a transfer, a second degree, or a change in academic focus.
As always, ILBSG actively monitors ongoing U.S. immigration news. We’ll continue tracking this case and will post updates as the court rules on the request for emergency relief. If you have questions about any U.S. immigration related issue, contact us. Working with an experienced attorney ensures you get the right advice based on the most recent laws. In an ever-evolving immigration policy landscape, it’s particularly critical you get the right advice.