Federal Court Temporarily Blocks DHS “Duration of Status” Rule

A federal district court in Massachusetts has temporarily postponed the effective date of a DHS rule that would have replaced the longstanding “duration of status” (D/S) admission framework for F, J, and I nonimmigrants with fixed periods of admission. The rule was scheduled to take effect on September 15, 2026, but the court issued a preliminary injunction preventing DHS from implementing it while litigation continues.

As a result, F-1 students, J-1 exchange visitors, I media representatives, and their dependents will continue to be admitted for duration of status for the time being, rather than receiving fixed admission periods that could require extension filings to remain in the United States.

For employers, the injunction also avoids, at least for now, significant new operational and tracking challenges under the fixed-period framework, particularly for employees working pursuant to CPT, OPT, and STEM OPT. The rule would have introduced additional extension-of-stay requirements and potentially separate timelines for maintaining F-1 status and employment authorization, requiring closer coordination among employees, schools, immigration counsel, and HR and creating additional risks of gaps or interruptions in employment authorization. For now, employers and F-1 employees may continue to rely on the existing D/S and practical training framework.

The court’s order pauses implementation of the rule but does not permanently invalidate it. The federal government is expected to appeal the decision, and further developments are likely in the coming weeks.

Background:

By way of background, the United States has historically admitted individuals in F, J, and I status for the duration of their approved academic program, exchange program, or media assignment, rather than for a fixed period. This framework, commonly referred to as Duration of Status (D/S), has allowed these individuals to remain in the United States as long as needed to complete their authorized activities without periodic extension filings.

Under the proposed rule, USCIS sought to replace the long-standing Duration of Status (D/S) framework with fixed periods of admission. As a result, F, J, and I nonimmigrants requiring additional time to complete their studies, exchange programs, employment, or assignments would generally have been required to file an extension of stay application with USCIS or obtain a new visa abroad. In addition, the proposed rule would have restricted academic mobility, shortened certain grace periods, expanded the circumstances under which unlawful presence could accrue, and narrowed eligibility for I nonimmigrant status by imposing stricter requirements on qualifying foreign media organizations and their representatives. These changes, among others, would have represented a significant departure from the existing system and would have imposed substantial new compliance, tracking, and filing obligations on foreign nationals, educational institutions, exchange program sponsors, media organizations, and employers.

The rule was originally scheduled to take effect on September 15, 2026, and included transition provisions for individuals currently in F, J, or I status.

On August 18, 2026, a coalition of labor unions and higher education organizations filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts challenging the rule. On September 14, 2026, the court issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from implementing or enforcing the rule pending further order of the court.

Court’s Findings:

In granting the preliminary injunction, U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claims that the Final Rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Specifically, the court found that DHS failed to adequately demonstrate how the rule would meaningfully advance its stated objectives, including enhancing national security, reducing fraud, and preventing overstays. The court also determined that DHS did not sufficiently evaluate the rule's significant economic and practical impacts on affected stakeholders.

Additionally, the court found that DHS failed to adequately address the nearly 22,000 public comments submitted during the rulemaking process and did not meaningfully consider less restrictive alternatives proposed by stakeholders. Based on these findings, the court granted nationwide preliminary relief, preventing the rule from taking effect unless and until further judicial action permits its implementation.

Final Thoughts

Although the court's preliminary injunction has temporarily halted implementation of the rule, the litigation remains ongoing and the rule could still take effect if the injunction is lifted or overturned on appeal. If ultimately implemented, the rule would represent one of the most significant changes to the administration of F, J, and I nonimmigrant status in decades. By replacing the longstanding Duration of Status (D/S) framework with fixed periods of admission, it would fundamentally alter how affected individuals maintain lawful status in the United States and would impose substantial new compliance, monitoring, and filing obligations on foreign nationals, educational institutions, exchange program sponsors, foreign media organizations, and employers.

Accordingly, organizations with affected populations should continue to assess the potential impact of the rule on workforce planning, employee mobility programs, and immigration compliance processes. In particular, employers may need to prepare for an increase in extension filings, additional administrative burdens, and enhanced tracking of immigration status expiration dates to ensure continued compliance.

We will continue to monitor developments in the litigation and provide updates as additional information becomes available. In the meantime, please contact your Seyfarth immigration team with any questions regarding the potential impact of these developments on your organization or workforce.