There’s a significant update to a rule we’ve been closely tracking: on September 14, 2026, a federal judge in Massachusetts issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking DHS’s rule ending Duration of Status for F, J, and I nonimmigrants — just one day before the rule was scheduled to take effect. The current Duration of Status system remains in place while the litigation continues.
What the Court Actually Did
In Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, et al. v. DHS, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV granted plaintiffs’ request to postpone the rule’s effective date under Section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiffs included organizations representing hundreds of colleges and universities along with several labor unions, including one representing journalists.
Importantly, the court denied, without prejudice, plaintiffs’ separate request to fully vacate the rule or grant summary judgment in their favor. That means this is a pause rather than a final resolution: the litigation continues, and the government could still ultimately prevail on the merits, or the rule could later be struck down entirely, or plaintiffs could lose and the rule could go into effect on a new timeline.
The court also addressed why the relief applies nationwide rather than only to the specific organizations that sued. The judge reasoned that limiting relief to named plaintiffs would be unworkable given that there are more than 5,000 higher-education institutions in the country, and that students regularly transfer between schools or pursue joint degrees, which would make a patchwork of school-by-school or student-by-student determinations chaotic and inconsistent.
Why the Court Sided With Plaintiffs
The court’s opinion was notably pointed in its criticism of how DHS handled the rulemaking process. The judge noted that DHS gave the public only a 32-day comment period, despite the scale of the rule’s impact, and that roughly 22,000 comments came in during that window, the overwhelming majority in opposition. According to the opinion, DHS largely dismissed those concerns as “speculative” or “unquantifiable” without engaging substantively with the underlying arguments.
The court also pointed to the scale of what’s at stake: approximately 1.6 million people currently hold F visas and roughly 500,000 hold J visas. The opinion cited research suggesting a meaningful share of current and prospective international students said they would not have enrolled in the U.S. under the new system, and cited an economic estimate that even a conservative reduction in international enrollment could cost the American economy tens of billions of dollars annually. The court found DHS’s stated justifications, centered on national security and fraud prevention, to be only loosely connected to the actual provisions of the rule.
What This Means Right Now
For F-1 students, J-1 exchange visitors, and I-visa foreign media representatives, the practical effect is that the prior Duration of Status system remains in place for now. The fixed admission periods, the shortened extension procedures, and the other changes described in the final rule are on hold nationwide, not just for people connected to the plaintiff organizations.
That said, this is very much not the end of the story. The underlying case is still being litigated, the government may appeal, and the rule could still be revived in some form depending on how the case proceeds. Anyone whose planning had already shifted around the September 15 effective date, including schools that adjusted I-20 or DS-2019 issuance practices, extension timelines, or advising guidance, should treat this as a reason to pause and reassess rather than a permanent resolution.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Duration of Status back in effect for everyone?
Yes, for now. The injunction is nationwide, so it applies to F, J, and I nonimmigrants generally, not only to people connected to the organizations that brought the lawsuit.
Does this mean the fixed admission period rule is dead permanently?
No. The court only postponed the rule’s effective date while the case continues; it specifically declined, without prejudice, to vacate the rule outright. The litigation is ongoing, and the outcome could still change.
I already adjusted my plans around the September 15 effective date. What should I do?
Speak with your DSO, program sponsor, or an immigration attorney about how this development affects your specific situation. Given how quickly this changed, it’s worth confirming your current status and any pending filings reflect the fact that Duration of Status is back in place for now.
Could DHS appeal this ruling?
Yes, an appeal is possible, and the underlying case will continue in the district court regardless. This is a preliminary injunction, not a final judgment, so further developments are likely.
Does this affect the related changes to family member extensions or the shortened grace period that were part of the same rule?
Since the injunction postpones the effective date of the Final Rule as a whole, the related provisions tied to that same rule are also on hold for now, pending further developments in the litigation. NPZ Law Group is closely monitoring this litigation and will provide updates as the case develops.
If you or your family members have questions about how this or other immigration and nationality matters may affect you, please do not hesitate to contact the immigration and nationality lawyers at NPZ Law Group. You can reach us by emailing info@visaserve.com or by visiting our website at www.visaserve.com for more information.