A coalition of higher-education and labor organizations has asked a federal court to permanently set aside the Department of Homeland Security’s rule ending Duration of Status for F-1 students, J-1 exchange visitors and I visa holders.
The plaintiffs filed their latest response on November 2, 2026, arguing that DHS has not overcome the legal problems identified when the court initially blocked the rule. DHS, meanwhile, is asking the court to uphold the regulation—or, if the court finds legal defects, return it to the agency without vacating it. (storage.courtlistener.com)
As of November 4, 2026, the rule remains blocked nationwide. The existing Duration of Status framework continues to apply while U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV considers the parties’ summary judgment motions.
The plaintiffs want the court to grant summary judgment in their favor and vacate the entire final rule. Summary judgment allows a court to decide a case without a trial when the relevant legal issues can be resolved from the written record.
In their November 2 filing, the plaintiffs argue that DHS still has not adequately addressed the court’s preliminary concerns about:
These are the plaintiffs’ arguments, not a new court ruling. However, the court previously found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in showing that the rule was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. That was a preliminary finding rather than a final decision on the merits. (storage.courtlistener.com)
The plaintiffs also argue that vacating the rule would not disrupt an active regulatory system because the court blocked it before its scheduled September 15, 2026 effective date. (storage.courtlistener.com)
DHS argues that replacing Duration of Status with fixed admission periods would create regular opportunities for immigration officials to determine whether F, J and I nonimmigrants are complying with their status.
The final rule would generally limit F and J admission periods to the length of the authorized program, up to four years. Individuals needing additional time could be required to request an extension of stay or leave the United States and seek readmission. The rule also included new restrictions on school transfers and educational-level changes and would have reduced the F-1 post-completion grace period from 60 days to 30 days. (federalregister.gov)
In its summary judgment brief, DHS maintains that it adequately considered the regulation’s costs, benefits, alternatives and public comments. If the court disagrees, DHS asks for “remand without vacatur,” which could allow the rule to remain legally intact while the agency addresses identified problems. The government alternatively argues for narrower relief limited to the plaintiffs and for leaving severable provisions in place. (storage.courtlistener.com)
Nothing in the November filings changes the rules that F-1 students must follow today.
The court’s September 14 order postponed the final rule’s effective date and prohibited DHS and ICE from taking further steps to implement it until another court order or a decision on the merits. Students can review Day1CPT.org’s earlier coverage of the September 14 Duration of Status order for additional background. (storage.courtlistener.com)
Under the current framework:
Duration of Status does not eliminate the need to maintain valid F-1 status. A student who needs additional time to finish a program must still work with the Designated School Official to obtain an eligible Form I-20 program extension before the existing program end date.
The litigation also does not create or expand eligibility for Curricular Practical Training, including programs commonly described as Day 1 CPT. Students must continue following their school’s academic requirements and obtain CPT authorization before beginning employment.
The scheduled district-court summary judgment briefing is complete, but the court has not announced a decision date. Judge Saylor could issue a written decision or schedule oral argument before ruling.
DHS has also appealed the September preliminary order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Under the current appellate schedule, the government’s opening brief is due November 9, 2026, and the plaintiffs’ response is due December 9, 2026. The appeal itself does not lift the existing nationwide block. (presidentsalliance.org)
A final district-court judgment could change how the appeal proceeds. Until a court issues a new controlling order, students should continue following the existing F-1 rules and confirm case-specific questions with their DSO or a qualified immigration attorney.
Yes. As of November 4, 2026, the DHS final rule ending Duration of Status remains blocked nationwide. F-1 students generally continue to be admitted for D/S and must maintain status by complying with their academic, reporting and employment requirements.
No. The September 14 order postponed the rule and blocked its implementation, but it did not permanently vacate the regulation. The plaintiffs are now asking the district court to vacate it through a final summary judgment decision.
No, not solely because of the blocked rule. The four-year fixed-admission system is not currently in effect. Form I-539 may still be required in other circumstances, including certain change-of-status requests, so students should evaluate their individual situation separately.
No. The current litigation concerns the Duration of Status final rule and related admission and academic-mobility provisions. It does not independently authorize CPT, change Day 1 CPT eligibility or approve an OPT application. Students must continue following existing practical-training rules and the dates listed on their Forms I-20 and employment authorization documents.
Yes. DHS could appeal a final judgment vacating the rule. The government has already appealed the September preliminary order, and additional appellate proceedings may follow after the district court decides the merits.