On Sept. 14, 2026, one day before the Department of Homeland Security’s fixed-term admission rule was scheduled to take effect, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts postponed the rule’s effective date nationwide. Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 1:26-cv-13799-FDS. For now, duration of status remains the governing admission framework for F, J, and I nonimmigrants.

The ruling affects international students, exchange visitors, and foreign-media representatives, and employers planning for employees’ lawful status, workforce management, and compliance obligations.

The Intended Rule

DHS’s July 17, 2026, final rule, Establishing a Fixed Time Period of Admission and an Extension of Stay Procedure for Nonimmigrant Academic Students, Exchange Visitors, and Representatives of Foreign Information Media, would have replaced duration of status with fixed periods of admission for F, J, and I nonimmigrants.

For F and J nonimmigrants, the rule would have limited admission to the earlier of a fixed four-year period or the academic program end date, without regard to whether the program ordinarily would take longer. For I nonimmigrants, it would have imposed a 240-day limit or admission through completion of the assignment, whichever came first. The rule therefore would have moved many individuals who presently maintain status through continued compliance with their program requirements into a system requiring affirmative, discretionary extension-of-stay adjudications.

The rule would have required F and J nonimmigrants seeking additional time, including many doctoral students, to file a Form I-539 extension of stay application. DHS would have retained discretion over those requests, and a denial would not have been subject to administrative appeal within DHS. The rule also would have shortened the departure grace period from 60 days to 30 days, restricted F students from pursuing a second degree at the same or lower educational level, and curtailed graduate student changes of educational objective or transfers except in specified extenuating circumstances. These restrictions would have affected joint, combined, and dual-degree programs.

DHS estimated compliance costs of approximately $443.1 million to $448.6 million, principally related to rule familiarization and extension-of-stay processing. The rule emerged after a 32-day comment period that produced nearly 22,000 comments. It was finalized largely as proposed, with an effective date of Sept. 15, 2026.

Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV of the District of Massachusetts granted interim relief under Section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), postponing the final rule’s effective date pending final resolution on the merits. The court applied the preliminary-relief factors and concluded that the plaintiffs had shown a likelihood of success on their APA claim, irreparable harm absent relief, and that the equities and public interest favored relief.

The court emphasized the limits of its role. It did not conclude that the rule could be blocked merely because it was misguided or ill-advised, because of concerns regarding the government’s candor, or because the rule might cause long-term damage to U.S. educational institutions. Rather, the issue was whether DHS had complied with the APA’s requirements for reasoned decision-making. On that issue, the court found that the rulemaking was likely arbitrary and capricious in at least four independent respects.

First, the court said DHS did not seriously account for the rule’s likely costs. Commenters presented evidence that nearly half of current international students might not have enrolled under a fixed-term system, and that even a modest drop in enrollment could cost the United States tens of billions of dollars each year. DHS dismissed that evidence without offering its own data or analysis. However, the court held that an agency cannot ignore a major cost simply because it has not calculated the exact dollar amount.

Second, the court found that DHS did not meaningfully address less disruptive options. Commenters suggested improving the Students and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), the government’s tracking system, to add compliance checkpoints, matching any fixed admission period to the actual length of a program, or focusing extra screening on particular high-risk fields or countries. The court found DHS’s responses to those ideas thin and unpersuasive. It also noted that SEVIS had helped uncover many of the incidents DHS used to criticize the duration-of-status system.

Third, the court concluded that DHS did not adequately respond to important public comments. Among other issues, DHS did not sufficiently explain its assumptions about enrollment losses, doctoral completion times, student transfers and second degrees, reliance on the current rules, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) processing backlogs, and press freedom concerns. For example, DHS pointed to a source suggesting that doctorates take four years, while commenters presented evidence that doctoral study often takes considerably longer. The court said an agency cannot simply state a belief when the evidence in the record points in the other direction.

Fourth, the court found that DHS did not adequately explain how fixed admission periods would advance its stated fraud and national-security goals. The examples DHS cited involved conduct that could occur well within four years or even during a short B-1 visit. DHS also did not explain why F-1 students who remain in status for more than 10 years are necessarily suspect when their time in the United States may reflect doctoral study followed by authorized practical training. For the 240-day cap on I nonimmigrants, the court found no supporting fraud or national-security evidence at all.

The court found that injury was already occurring. It cited student withdrawals at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, a 42% decline in international applications at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, disruption to joint and combined degree programs, cancelled research and conference travel, and projected administrative upheaval. DHS itself had estimated that designated school officials and responsible officers would spend about 135 hours on first-year familiarization and adaptation, at a cost of up to $267.9 million.

The court also addressed the scope of the order. The government invoked Trump v. CASA to argue for party-limited relief. Judge Saylor distinguished traditional equitable authority from APA remedies, noting that CASA expressly reserved the question whether the APA authorizes vacatur under Section 706. The court further relied on Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence and the First Circuit’s decision in Woonasquatucket River Watershed Council v. USDA, 2026 WL 2279789, decided Aug. 7, 2026, to reject a categorical party-specific limitation on Section 705 postponement. Nationwide relief was appropriate, the court explained, because the plaintiffs represent approximately 600 institutions while more than 5,000 institutions operate nationwide, and party-limited relief would create parallel regulatory regimes and difficult coverage determinations for students who transfer or pursue joint degrees.

The court selected postponement under APA Section 705, rather than vacatur under Section 706, and denied the requests for vacatur and summary judgment without prejudice to renewal. The case therefore continues, and the merits remain to be finally resolved.

Implications for Business Immigration Practice

For now, F, J, and I nonimmigrants remain subject to the current duration-of-status framework, and DHS’s July 17, 2026, final rule is not in effect. The 60-day departure grace period remains in place, the Final Rule’s new I-539 extension requirement does not apply, and schools and program sponsors need not implement the Final Rule’s transition provisions. Because the postponement is nationwide, this conclusion is not limited to the institutions represented by the plaintiffs.

For employers that rely on international talent, the decision leaves the existing compliance framework in place rather than requiring an immediate conversion to fixed-term admission and extension-of-stay planning. The final rule’s four-year cap and related restrictions are not currently in effect.

However, this is interim relief rather than a final resolution. The government may seek review in the First Circuit, and DHS could pursue further proceedings or a new rulemaking designed to address the deficiencies identified by the court. The scope of APA Section 705 relief after CASA also remains an evolving issue. Employers with employees participating in multi-year academic programs, research appointments, or assignments may wish to treat the current framework as controlling for now, while recognizing that further litigation, appeals, or rulemaking could alter the regulatory landscape.