Federal court blocks elimination of duration of status for international students

A federal court has temporarily stopped the Department of Homeland Security from implementing its new final rule that would limit how long international students and exchange visitors can stay in the country, effectively blocking the changes expected for students’ and scholars’ F and J visas. An email to international students from the Davis International Center on Tuesday afternoon, obtained by The Daily Princetonian, explained the reversal and warned students to be prepared for a quick reversal of the order.

“We should be prepared for the possibility of a reversal of the order and perhaps quick implementation of the regulation with little or no notice, as the ruling allows for litigation to continue, including a status conference for the parties scheduled on October 2, 2026,” Davis IC Director Albert Rivera wrote in the email.

The stoppage follows a lawsuit brought by the President’s Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration against the DHS in late August. The lawsuit alleged that DHS’s blocked rule was arbitrary and enabled officials to use “limited and vague criteria … to cut short the academic, research, or teaching activities of any non-U.S. citizen for no reason or any reason,” according to Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV’s decision filed on Monday. 

The Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration is a coalition of 580 American college and university leaders who seek to support immigrant, undocumented, and international students. University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 joined the organization as a founding member in 2017.

The new rule would have gone into effect on Tuesday and would have capped the length of stay for those on F or J visa status to four years. This would have required F and J visa holders — which are held by students, postdocs, and some faculty — who needed more than four years to complete their studies or work to submit an extension-of-stay request to DHS. 

Saylor cited the Administrative Procedure Act in his decision, which “permits courts to set aside agency actions that are arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.” Further, there must exist a “rational connection between the facts found and choice made” by DHS. 

Saylor’s decision focused on a rigorous questioning of whether the DHS can rationally claim that visa holders are abusing their visas and therefore deny any extension requests, writing that “any decision by DHS to deny a request for an extension is entirely discretionary and unappealable, even within DHS itself.”

“In other words, a DHS official — based on limited and vague criteria, and with no possibility of appeal — will have the power to cut short the academic, research, or teaching activities of any non-U.S. citizen for no reason or any reason,” Saylor’s decision read, further warning that the system could be “abused” to “punish disfavored institutions.” 

It is known whether Princeton is “disfavored.” In April 2025, $210 million in research grants were suspended, at the onset of an antisemitism investigation. By August of that year, half of these grants were unfrozen.  

DHS General Counsel James Percival wrote on Monday night on X that Saylor’s rule was enabling individuals who “come on a student visa, take one class per semester, and stay here for decades” to abuse the system. “According to Judge Dennis Saylor, ICE must permit this rampant abuse of our immigration system,” Percival wrote in his post. 

There is a 32-day period beginning Aug. 28, 2026 for the public to comment on the new rule, drawing over 20,000 responses so far. In reaction to concerns that the rule would deter international students from enrolling in American universities, the government stated that those students could simply be replaced by other qualified applicants.

Saylor further shared concerns in his ruling that compliance costs and drops in international enrollment could have significant consequences on the economy, potentially leading to billions of dollars worth of losses each year in the United States. 

Ultimately, Saylor called DHS’s new rule “arbitrary and capricious,” in “at least” four ways.  

“DHS failed to conduct a reasoned calculation of the benefits and costs of the Final Rule; failed to conduct a meaningful consideration of other alternatives; failed to respond to significant comments expressing substantial concerns; and failed to show that there is a rational connection between the Final Rule and its purported objectives,” Saylor wrote.

One international student in the Class of 2029 from Australia, told the ‘Prince’ that they “definitely considered” whether to leave Princeton or not after the announcement of the fixed visa period, despite considering graduate school. They requested anonymity out of concern for their visa status.

“This is really tiring for me — the process of getting the visa itself was already a big step out of my comfort zone, and now with this added uncertainty, and at the pace at which everything’s going and being blocked … I’m just very confused most of the time,” the student told the ‘Prince.’ “I definitely have had that same sentiment with other people, who have said ‘I just want to go back to my home country and just study there.’” 

Another sophomore international student, who also asked not to be named out of concern for their immigration status, said that while they were not “considering leaving Princeton,” they were still “relieved” at the halt of the rule. 

However, they are “still unsure of how this will affect my future studies and potential careers in the U.S., as the initial announcement meant I’d need to secure employment very soon after graduating due to the smaller grace period.” 

For the international student from Australia, the new rule, while confusing, “practically doesn’t really change much — it’s just a lot more paperwork and unpredictability.” 

“There’s just now more process to navigate for us students who came here to just focus on the academic side of things,” the student said.

For the other international student, the halting of the rule “offers a temporary time period for policymakers to re-evaluate,” but it is “hard to tell [what will happen] since it’s only temporary.” They are anticipating that “there will be pushback on this reversal and the D/S may still be ended anyways.” 

These sentiments reflect broader trends of apprehension about the rule found in surveys of international students by the Institute for Progress and the National Association of Foreign Student Advisors: Association of International Educators. 

A DHS spokesperson addressed the decision in a statement to the ‘Prince.’ “The performative outrage is incredible. Where was the outrage when foreign nationals were abusing the system, violating the terms of their student visas, and making a mockery of our immigration laws?” the statement read. “If the media really cared about legitimate international students, they would be thanking President Trump for cracking down on the rampant fraud to ensure only those truly intending to study in the United States are given the privilege.” The spokesperson did not state whether DHS would appeal the decision.

“DHS is likely to appeal the court decision,” Rivera wrote in the email to international students. “Davis IC is closely monitoring and will provide additional updates as we have them.” The Davis IC did not respond to multiple requests for comment. 

The effective date of the rule is postponed “pending further order of this court or resolution of this proceeding on the merits.” The next hearing for the case will be Oct. 2. 

Luke Grippo is a head News editor for the ‘Prince.’ He is from South Jersey, and typically covers the state of higher education, University affairs, and state politics. He can be reached at luke.grippo[at]dailyprincetonian.com.

Kimberly Hutchinson contributed reporting. 

Please send any corrections to corrections[at]dailyprincetonian.com.