Federal Court Blocks DHS F-1, J-1 Fixed-Period Admission Rule; Curricular Practical Training Restrictions Remain

Takeaways

• A federal court’s injunction over the DHS fixed-period admission rule nationwide means the existing duration-of-status (D/S) framework for F-1 international students and J-1 exchange visitors will remain in place while litigation continues.
• The injunction does not affect the separate Curricular Practical Training guidance issued by the Student and Exchange Visitor Program in August 2026, which continues to restrict the availability of CPT, including Day 1 CPT.

Article

In Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 1:26-cv-13799, a coalition of plaintiffs, including NAFSA, the Presidents’ Alliance, and several labor unions, challenged the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) final rule replacing the “duration of status” (D/S) framework with fixed periods of admission for F-1 international students and J-1 exchange visitors. On Sept. 14, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking the DHS final rule, scheduled to take effect September 15.

Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV granted preliminary relief after concluding the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their Administrative Procedure Act claims. In the court’s view, DHS likely failed to:

• Conduct a reasoned analysis of the rule’s costs and benefits;
• Seriously consider less burdensome alternatives, adequately address significant public comments; and
• Explain how fixed periods of admission would further the agency’s stated fraud-prevention and national-security objectives.

The court made the relief nationwide, finding it would not be workable for schools and other affected parties to operate under different regulatory systems depending on their location.

As long as the injunction over the rule remains in effect, the following provisions will not apply:

• Fixed I-94 admission periods in place of D/S;
• Form I-539 extension-of-stay requirements for students who need additional time beyond a fixed admission date;
• The 240-day limit on continued employment while an extension-of-stay application is pending;
• Restrictions on beginning a second program at the same or a lower educational level;
• Restrictions on transfers and program changes at the graduate level;
• The shortened departure period, although the existing 60-day grace period remains in place; and
• Transition provisions, including the Nov. 14, 2030, outside date and the March 18, 2027 OPT filing deadline.

SEVP’s CPT Guidance is Not Affected

The court’s order does not extend to the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) broadcast messages issued on Aug. 12, 2026, and Aug. 24, 2026. Those messages narrowly interpreted when practical training is sufficiently “integral” to an established curriculum to qualify as Curricular Practical Training (CPT). The guidance remains relevant because it was issued separately under the existing CPT regulations and not dependent on the D/S framework.

Under SEVP’s interpretation, practical training must be a required part of the curriculum for all students, regardless of citizenship or immigration status, enrolled in the program. An optional internship or elective course generally will not be enough. SEVP has also warned that schools and individual designated school officials may face administrative or legal consequences for improper CPT authorizations. Thus, universities should begin reviewing their CPT policies.

Some employers may have considered Day 1 CPT as a bridge following the end of OPT or STEM OPT or after an employee is not selected in the H-1B cap lottery. Even though D/S remains intact, employers should consider that the SEVP guidance independently limits when CPT may be authorized.

The court’s injunction is preliminary. DHS may appeal, and the rule could take effect on relatively short notice if the injunction is lifted. Employers should continue following current D/S compliance practices, monitor the litigation, and take the narrower CPT landscape into account when developing immigration contingency plans for F-1 employees.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.