On September 14, 2026, a Massachusetts federal district court temporarily blocked a Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) regulation scheduled to take effect on September 15, 2026. The regulation would have ended the longstanding “Duration of Status” (“D/S”) system for international students, exchange visitors foreign media representatives, and their qualifying dependents. In Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al. , the Court postponed the effective date of the rule and prohibited DHS and United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) from implementing it while the litigation continues. As a result, the existing D/S framework remains in place. The Court has not, however, vacated the rule or issued a final decision on the merits of the case.
Prior to the DHS changes, students, exchange visitors and foreign media representatives have generally been permitted to remain in the United States for as long as they maintain the requirements of their immigration status. Rather than being admitted until a specific expiration date on their I-94, these individuals are generally admitted for “duration of status,” meaning that they may remain in the United States while they continue to comply with the terms and conditions of their status. For example, an F-1 student may generally remain in the United States while pursuing a full course of study and any authorized practical training. Likewise, a J-1 exchange visitor may remain for the duration of the approved exchange program, while an I visa holder may remain in the country for as long as they continue their qualifying foreign media activities. Because their admission is tied to maintaining status rather than a fixed expiration date, these individuals generally do not need to file an extension of stay simply because an academic program, exchange program, or qualifying media assignment continues longer than initially anticipated.
Under the blocked regulation, F-1 students and J-1 exchange visitors would instead have been admitted for the length of their program, subject to a four-year maximum. Students whose programs extended beyond their authorized admission period would generally have needed to apply to USCIS for an extension of stay. The rule also would have imposed significant new restrictions on academic flexibility. Among other changes, F-1 graduate students generally would not have been permitted to change their educational objective during their program, and their ability to transfer institutions would have been restricted. The rule also would have reduced the grace period following completion of studies or post-completion Optional Practical Training from 60 days to 30 days. For students pursuing lengthy doctoral or research programs, or whose academic plans changed during the course of their studies, the new system therefore would have added both immigration filings and uncertainty to decisions that are currently primarily academic in nature.
Foreign journalists and other qualifying foreign media representatives in I status would have been admitted for periods of up to 240 days, while journalists traveling on passports issued by the People’s Republic of China, other than Hong Kong SAR and Macau SAR passports, would generally have been limited to 90-day admission periods. Long-term reporting assignments could therefore have required one or more extension applications, or departure from and readmission to the United States, during the course of a project. For journalists assigned to the United States for extended periods, this would have replaced the current D/S framework with recurring immigration deadlines and USCIS adjudications during an otherwise continuing qualifying media assignment.
Under the blocked regulation, F, J, and I visa holders who needed to remain in the United States beyond their fixed authorized admission period would generally have been required to apply for an extension of stay with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) before that period expired, unless they departed and sought a new admission. Remaining in the United States beyond an authorized admission period without timely extending or otherwise maintaining lawful status could result in a violation of status and, depending on the circumstances, the accrual of unlawful presence. Extended periods of unlawful presence can have serious immigration consequences, including potential inadmissibility and difficulties obtaining future immigration benefits.
For now, the regulation remains blocked and the existing D/S system remains in effect while the litigation continues. The Court’s ruling is preliminary rather than a final determination of the validity of the rule, and further proceedings, including potential appellate review, may follow. In granting relief, Judge Saylor wrote that the “plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on their claims that the agency action (the adoption of the Final Rule) was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.” We will continue to monitor the case and provide updates as the litigation develops.
