Federal Court Postpones Fixed Admission Period Rule Nationwide

A federal court has postponed the Department of Homeland Security’s new fixed admission period rule for F, J and I nonimmigrants just one day before it was scheduled to take effect.

On September 14, 2026, Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts postponed the effective date of the DHS Final Rule that would have replaced the longstanding “duration of status” framework with fixed periods of admission for international students, exchange visitors and foreign media representatives.

The order applies nationwide and reaches the entire rule.

For now, the practical result is clear: F, J and I nonimmigrants remain subject to the existing duration-of-status framework.

The rule has been postponed, however—not vacated or withdrawn. Litigation will continue, and DHS may seek review of the decision.

What the Rule Would Have Changed

The Final Rule, 91 Fed. Reg. 44976, published July 17, 2026, would have fundamentally changed a system that has governed F admissions since 1978 and J admissions since 1985.

Under the rule:

• F and J nonimmigrants would have been admitted for a maximum fixed period of four years or until the program end date, whichever came first, regardless of the actual duration of the academic or exchange program.
• I nonimmigrants would have been admitted for 240 days or until completion of their assignment, whichever came first.
• Individuals needing additional time would generally have been required to file Form I-539 to request an extension of stay. According to the record before the court, this would have affected most doctoral students and many undergraduates. Approval or denial would have been committed to the discretion of an immigration officer, without an administrative appeal within DHS.
• The existing 60-day departure period would have been reduced to 30 days.
• F nonimmigrants would have been prohibited from pursuing a second degree at the same or a lower educational level, creating significant consequences for joint and dual-degree programs.
• Graduate students would have faced restrictions on changing educational objectives or transferring institutions, subject to an exception for extenuating circumstances.

DHS estimated overall compliance costs of approximately $443 million to $449 million.

The agency provided the public with a 32-day comment period, received nearly 22,000 comments and ultimately finalized the rule largely as proposed.

Why the Court Postponed the Rule

The court concluded that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on their claim under the Administrative Procedure Act, or APA.

It also found that irreparable harm was likely without relief and that the balance of equities and public interest supported postponement.

Importantly, the court did not base its decision on whether the policy itself was advisable. The court emphasized that its role was not to determine whether DHS had made a wise policy choice, but whether the agency followed the requirements of federal administrative law when issuing the regulation.

The court identified four areas in which it found the rulemaking likely arbitrary and capricious.

1. No Reasoned Cost-Benefit Analysis

Commenters submitted an Institute for Progress and NAFSA survey indicating that 49% of current international students would not have enrolled under a fixed-period system.

The administrative record also included an analysis from economist Michael Clemens and immigration policy experts Jeremy Neufeld and Amy Nice projecting annual economic losses of approximately $72 billion to $145 billion based on a conservative 10% decline in international student enrollment.

DHS characterized the survey data as reflecting hypothetical preferences rather than actual behavior but did not provide competing data or methodology.

Relying in part on Business Roundtable v. SEC, 647 F.3d 1144 (D.C. Cir. 2011), and GPA Midstream Ass’n v. U.S. Department of Transportation, 67 F.4th 1188 (D.C. Cir. 2023), the court concluded that an agency cannot simply disregard potentially significant costs because they have not been precisely quantified.

2. No Meaningful Consideration of Alternatives

Commenters presented alternatives to a fixed four-year period, including:

• Upgrading SEVIS to create additional compliance checkpoints;
• Tying admission periods to the actual length of an academic program; and
• Focusing enhanced screening on sensitive research fields or countries presenting identified concerns.

The court found DHS’s consideration of those alternatives insufficient.

It also noted that several security incidents cited by DHS as evidence of weaknesses in the duration-of-status framework had themselves been discovered through SEVIS.

3. No Meaningful Response to Significant Comments

The court identified multiple areas in which it found DHS had responded to significant public comments with assertions rather than supporting analysis.

These included:

• Potential effects on international enrollment;
• Less burdensome regulatory alternatives;
• The actual time required to complete doctoral programs;
• The assumption that students move only upward through degree levels;
• Reliance interests of institutions and students;
• Potential USCIS processing backlogs; and
• Press freedom concerns.

One example involved doctoral completion times.

DHS relied on a Department of Education webpage indicating a four-year doctoral timeline. Commenters, however, presented evidence showing a median completion time of 5.7 years for a doctorate and 7.3 years for a combined master’s and doctoral sequence.

Citing Mayor of Baltimore v. Azar, the court emphasized that an agency cannot rely solely on its stated belief when the administrative record contains substantial evidence pointing in another direction.

4. No Rational Connection Between the Rule and Its Stated Objectives

DHS justified the fixed-period system in part on national security and fraud-prevention grounds.

The court found that the agency had not adequately explained how the specific fixed admission periods addressed the incidents DHS cited.

For example, several of the activities referenced by DHS could have occurred within the proposed four-year period or even during a six-month B-1 admission. One Russian operative discussed in the rule had been present in the United States for only two years.

DHS also referenced approximately 77,000 F-1 students who had remained in status for more than 10 years since 2003. The court found that DHS had not sufficiently explained why a period consistent with completion of a doctoral program followed by post-completion training should itself be considered suspicious.

For I nonimmigrants, the court found that DHS had not offered security or fraud evidence supporting the proposed 240-day cap.

The court did not reach the plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim or their argument that the academic mobility restrictions conflicted with 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(F), because its APA analysis was sufficient to resolve the request for preliminary relief.

The Court Found Irreparable Harm Was Already Occurring

The court also concluded that the potential harm was not merely speculative.

The record included student withdrawals at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and the University of Maryland Baltimore County, as well as a reported 42% decline in international applications at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee.

The court also considered:

• Disruption to joint and combined-degree programs;
• International research and conference travel canceled by students already lawfully present in the United States; and
• Significant administrative burdens for educational institutions.

DHS itself had estimated that designated school officials and responsible officers could spend approximately 135 hours familiarizing themselves with the rule during the first year, at a cost of up to $267.9 million.

Why the Nationwide Scope Matters

The government argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. CASA limited relief to the parties directly before the court.

Judge Saylor rejected that argument in the context of relief under Section 705 of the APA.

The opinion relied in part on footnote 10 of CASA, Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence and the First Circuit’s August 7, 2026 decision in Woonasquatucket River Watershed Council v. USDA, 2026 WL 2279789.

The court distinguished traditional equitable relief from remedies available under the Administrative Procedure Act.

That distinction matters here because the court ordered postponement under Section 705, rather than vacating the rule under Section 706.

The plaintiffs represent approximately 600 institutions out of more than 5,000 nationwide. The court concluded that limiting relief only to those institutions would create parallel regulatory systems and require case-by-case determinations of which students were covered, particularly when students transferred schools or participated in joint-degree programs.

The court therefore applied its order nationwide.

Requests for vacatur and summary judgment were denied without prejudice, meaning those issues may be raised again as the case proceeds.

What Students, Institutions and Employers Should Know Now

Duration of status remains in place.

The new rule is not currently in effect.

F, J and I nonimmigrants continue to be admitted under the existing duration-of-status framework.

The 60-day grace period remains in place, and the rule’s new Form I-539 extension requirement has not taken effect.

Educational institutions do not need to implement the rule’s transition provisions at this time.

The relief applies nationwide.

The postponement is not limited to institutions participating directly in the lawsuit.

Institutions and affected individuals across the United States are covered by the court’s order.

The case is not over.

The postponement remains in place pending final resolution of the litigation, and the federal government may seek review before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

The court found deficiencies in at least four separate areas of DHS’s rulemaking process, but the broader question of the availability and scope of nationwide APA relief following Trump v. CASA continues to develop.

Planning decisions may need to be revisited.

Students who deferred enrollment, declined admission, changed travel plans or restructured joint-degree programs because of the new rule may need to reassess those decisions.

Institutions that invested in system modifications, training or operational changes in anticipation of the September effective date may also need to adjust implementation plans.

Employers with F-1 students or other affected workers in their talent pipelines should similarly avoid assuming that the regulatory landscape is settled.

The rule has been postponed—not withdrawn.

DHS may pursue additional proceedings, appeal the decision or undertake new rulemaking designed to address the deficiencies identified by the court.

Students, institutions and employers making multiyear plans should therefore continue monitoring the litigation and any subsequent agency action.

Another Important Takeaway: The Administrative Record Matters

The decision also demonstrates why participation in federal rulemaking can have consequences well beyond the comment period itself.

Much of the court’s analysis relied directly on information submitted by stakeholders during the 32-day public comment period, including:

• International enrollment surveys;
• Economic impact analyses;
• Doctoral completion-time data;
• Evidence concerning second degrees and joint-degree programs;
• Institutional and student reliance interests;
• Projected I-539 filing volumes;
• Press freedom concerns; and
• Proposed alternatives to the fixed-period framework.

Under the APA, judicial review generally focuses on the administrative record created during the rulemaking process.

That makes substantive participation important. Institutions and employers affected by future immigration regulations should consider using comment periods to provide data, document operational consequences, identify practical alternatives and explain existing reliance interests.

Those submissions may influence the final regulation—and, if litigation follows, may become part of the record a reviewing court considers.

BHLG Will Continue to Monitor the Litigation

For now, F, J and I nonimmigrants remain under the existing duration-of-status framework.

But organizations should not interpret the September 14 ruling as the end of the issue.

BHLG will continue monitoring the case, any appellate proceedings and any subsequent action from DHS that could affect international students, exchange visitors, educational institutions and employers relying on these populations as part of their workforce and talent strategies.

Sources

• AILA Think Immigration, “One Day Before Taking Effect, Federal Court Postpones the F, J, and I Fixed Admission Period Rule,” AILA Doc. No. 26091703, September 17, 2026.
• Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 1:26-cv-13799-FDS (D. Mass. Sept. 14, 2026). Litigation information
• Final Rule, 91 Fed. Reg. 44976 (July 17, 2026).
• AILA: SEVP Outstanding Questions on the Duration of Status Final Rule
• Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983).
• Business Roundtable v. SEC, 647 F.3d 1144 (D.C. Cir. 2011).
• GPA Midstream Ass’n v. U.S. Department of Transportation, 67 F.4th 1188 (D.C. Cir. 2023).
• Mayor of Baltimore v. Azar.
• Trump v. Hawaii.
• Trump v. CASA.
• Woonasquatucket River Watershed Council v. USDA, 2026 WL 2279789 (1st Cir. Aug. 7, 2026).