Court pauses the rule ending “duration of status” for students and exchange visitors

It has been 10 days since a federal court blocked the Department of Homeland Security’s rule ending “duration of status.” On September 14, 2026, one day before the rule was set to start, a judge in Massachusetts postponed it nationwide. For now, international students, exchange visitors, and foreign journalists stay under the existing system.

What the rule would have done

For decades, F students and J exchange visitors have been admitted for “duration of status,” or “D/S.” The court explained: “That means, in substance, that nonimmigrants are admitted for the duration of their educational programs.”

DHS published a final rule on July 17, 2026. It would “change the admission period in the F, J, and I classifications from duration of status to an admission for a fixed time period.” The rule said: “The effective date is September 15, 2026.”

As the court described it, “F and J visas will be capped at four years, regardless of the anticipated or likely length of educational program or research.” “For journalists with I visas, the cap is only 240 days.” People needing more time, such as many Ph.D. students, “will need to submit an extension-of-stay request to DHS, using a Form I-539.” Family members were tied to the main visa holder: “the authorized period of stay for F–2 dependents may not exceed the authorized period of stay of the principal F–1 student.”

What the court did

The case is Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. In the court’s words, “Plaintiffs are three organizations, representing a variety of colleges, universities, and educators, and four labor organizations, one of which represents journalists and other communications workers.”

On September 14, Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV issued an opinion and a two-page order. The order says: “The effective date of the Final Rule is hereby POSTPONED pending further order of this court or resolution of this proceeding on the merits.” It also says: “Defendants are preliminarily enjoined from taking any further action to implement the Final Rule pending further order of this court or resolution of this proceeding on the merits.”

The judge wrote that “this Court does not have the power to block the rule on the ground that it is misguided or ill-advised.” Instead, “the only authority that the Court possesses is to ensure that when the government promulgates a new regulation, it adheres to the law.” Here, that law is the Administrative Procedure Act, which sets the steps federal agencies must follow to make rules.

This is not a final decision. The court found the groups that sued are likely to win, so the rule is on hold while the case continues. Either side may appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. As of September 24, 2026, the public docket on CourtListener showed no appeal and no request to pause the order. The court has set a status conference for October 2, 2026.

Who it affects

The order covers the rule itself, not just the groups that sued. The judge explained that “nationwide relief—which, again, is permitted by § 705—prevents chaos and confusion that a party-specific order would inevitably generate.” It covers F students, J exchange visitors, I foreign media representatives, and their family members across the country, and the schools and programs that host them.

Deadlines and official resources

Students usually ask their school’s Designated School Official (DSO) how a change affects their record; exchange visitors usually ask their program’s Responsible Officer. DHS’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program posts updates on Study in the States. The rule is in the Federal Register, and the case filings are on the court docket.

For law students

Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education & Immigration v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security, No. 1:26-cv-13799-FDS (D. Mass. Sept. 14, 2026) (ECF Nos. 50, 51) (postponing the rule under 5 U.S.C. § 705). Holding: “Plaintiffs are therefore likely to succeed on the merits of their claims; immediate irreparable harm will ensue if an injunction does not issue; and the balance of equities and public interest favor the issuance of an injunction.” Read the opinion and the order.