A US District Court has temporarily blocked a federal rule that would have ended the Duration of Status framework for international students in the United States. The injunction means the existing system remains in place for now, avoiding an immediate switch to fixed admission periods that had been set to begin on 15 September.
Key facts
- The blocked rule was scheduled to take effect on 15 September.
- Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV issued a nationwide preliminary injunction on 14 September.
- The rule would have replaced Duration of Status with fixed admission periods of four years for degree students and 24 months for language students.
- Students needing more time would have had to seek an extension from US immigration officials.
- The court said plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims under the Administrative Procedure Act.
What does this mean for international students?
For now, international students can continue under the Duration of Status system, which allows them to remain in the US for as long as it takes to complete their programme. That reduces the immediate risk that a student would need to file for an extension simply to finish a degree or move into Optional Practical Training after graduation.
The blocked rule had been expected to create a new layer of uncertainty, especially for students whose programmes take longer than the proposed fixed periods. According to the court record cited in the evidence, any extension request would have been subject to DHS discretion and would not have been appealable within DHS, raising concerns for students, researchers and institutions planning long academic timelines.
Immigration firm Fragomen said DHS is barred from implementing the fixed admission rule until further court order, but also warned that an appeal could come quickly. That means students, universities and employers may still need to watch for changes in the legal process.
Why did the court issue the injunction?
The court said the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims and that immediate irreparable harm would follow without an injunction. It also found that the balance of equities and the public interest favored pausing the rule while the case continues.
In its reasoning, the court said the Department of Homeland Security had failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act in multiple respects. The judge also wrote that the rule would substantially restrict the overall number of foreign students, researchers, professors and journalists in the United States and could deter student enrolment.
What would the rule have changed?
The final rule would have replaced the Duration of Status framework with a fixed admission period. Degree students would have been admitted for four years, while language students would have had 24 months.
Students who needed more time would have had to apply for an extension of stay using Form I-539. The evidence says the court viewed the process as uncertain because DHS had provided limited guidance on how requests would be judged and no clear indication of how the agency system would handle a larger volume of applications.
What happens next?
The injunction postpones the final rule pending resolution of the case on the merits. For now, the previous Duration of Status framework stays in effect.
The evidence also indicates the government is likely to appeal, so the current relief may not be the final word. Universities and students with upcoming immigration planning needs are likely to continue monitoring the litigation closely.
