A US district court has heard arguments in a legal challenge to the Trump administration’s decision to end the longstanding “duration of status” framework for international students and exchange visitors, with higher-education groups warning that the new rules could disrupt students’ academic plans and make the US less attractive to international talent. The US District Court (Massachusetts) heard oral arguments on Thursday, in a lawsuit filed by a coalition of higher-education associations, unions and other organisations seeking to block the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rule before it takes effect in the coming days. The court has not yet issued a ruling.
The lawsuit was filed on August 18 by organisations including 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 and several unions. The plaintiffs have also sought a preliminary injunction to prevent implementation of the rule. The DHS final rule, published on July 17, replaces the decades-old “duration of status”, or D/S, system for F-1 international students and J-1 exchange visitors with fixed periods of admission of no more than four years. It is scheduled to take effect on September 15, 2026.
Under the existing D/S system, students who maintain their status and continue making progress in their academic programme can generally remain in the US for the duration of their studies, without having to obtain a new immigration extension simply because a particular date has been reached. The new system would instead require students and scholars who need additional time to complete their programmes or training to apply for an extension of stay. The rule also introduces restrictions affecting academic mobility, including changes to educational objectives, transfers between institutions and additional programmes of study.
Following Thursday’s hearing, the Presidents’ Alliance said the arguments highlighted what it described as “serious and irreparable harms” that the rule could cause to international students, scholars, higher-education institutions, communities and the US economy. Miriam Feldblum, president and CEO of the Presidents’ Alliance, said the hearing also underscored what the coalition views as the government’s failure to adequately engage in the rulemaking process. “Today’s hearing laid out the serious and irreparable harms this rule would cause to international students, scholars, higher education institutions, our communities, the economy, and U.S. research and innovation,” Feldblum said. She added that the coalition appreciated the court’s consideration of the issues and was looking forward to its ruling.
Fanta Aw, executive director and CEO of NAFSA, said the organisation remained opposed to the change, describing it as a policy shift that would introduce uncertainty for international students and scholars. “We remain steadfast in our belief that DHS’s decision to end Duration of Status is a misguided and unnecessary policy shift that injects uncertainty, bureaucracy, and fear into a system that has long worked effectively,” Fanta Aw said. “At a time when global competition for talent is intensifying, this policy is not just bad for higher education, it is bad for American innovation, economic growth, workforce development, and global leadership,” she said.
The change is particularly significant for students whose academic journeys do not fit neatly within a four-year period. Under the new framework, a student whose programme, research, optional practical training requires additional time could face the additional step of applying for an extension of stay rather than continuing under D/S. The plaintiffs argue that this could create uncertainty for students and universities and shift decisions that have traditionally been made by academic institutions such as programme progression and educational pathways into the immigration system.
The rule also affects J-1 exchange visitors and representatives of foreign media holding I visas, by moving them away from the D/S framework and imposing fixed admission periods. For Indian students, the litigation is being closely watched because the US remains a major destination for students from India, many of whom pursue multi-year graduate, doctoral and research programmes and may subsequently use Optional Practical Training (OPT) – which for STEM students is three years. The broader concern for universities is that additional immigration uncertainty could make it harder to recruit and retain international students and researchers. The Presidents’ Alliance has said the rule could disrupt educational and professional plans and undermine the ability of US colleges and universities to attract and retain global talent.
The timing of the court proceedings is significant because the DHS rule is currently scheduled to become effective on September 15. The litigation seeks to prevent the rule from taking effect and preserve the D/S framework while the case is litigated.
