NAFSA Joins Lawsuit Against DHS Over 2026 CPT Restrictions

Four major higher-education organizations filed a federal lawsuit on October 5, 2026, challenging the Student and Exchange Visitor Program’s new interpretation of Curricular Practical Training (CPT) for F-1 international students.

The Association of American Universities (AAU), Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, NAFSA: Association of International Educators, and the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts (AICUM) filed the case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the Department of Justice.

The lawsuit targets two SEVP Broadcast Messages issued on August 12 and August 24 that prompted universities across the country to reconsider, restrict, or pause certain CPT authorizations. NAFSA’s October 6 communication to international educators said some campuses had paused CPT authorizations and students had lost internships they had secured months earlier. 

What Is the CPT Lawsuit Challenging?

The dispute centers on how SEVP now interprets the federal requirement that CPT be an “integral part of an established curriculum.”

The governing regulation, 8 CFR § 214.2(f)(10)(i), allows a Designated School Official (DSO) to authorize an F-1 student for CPT that is integral to an established curriculum. It describes CPT as alternative work/study, internships, cooperative education, or other required internships or practicums offered through cooperative arrangements with schools. A student must receive the CPT-endorsed Form I-20 before beginning the employment. 

SEVP’s August guidance applies a substantially narrower interpretation. Universities implementing Broadcast Message 2608-02 have said SEVP now expects the practical training to be required for students participating in the relevant curriculum and necessary for completing the academic program, rather than merely available through an elective internship or course-credit option. 

That distinction has already changed university policies. MIT paused certain CPT authorizations involving optional practical experiences, while USC said CPT requests would be authorized when practical training is a degree requirement for graduation. 

For more background on the August guidance itself, see Day1CPT.org’s 2026 CPT changes and new F-1 internship rules.

What Are the Colleges Asking the Court to Do?

The plaintiffs argue that the August messages unlawfully changed a longstanding interpretation of CPT without the procedures normally required for changing federal policy.

According to AAU, the complaint alleges that the government’s actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act because they are arbitrary and capricious, contrary to law, procedurally invalid, and impermissibly retroactive. The organizations are seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.

NAFSA and the other plaintiffs also argue that the government abruptly reversed a CPT interpretation that federal authorities had followed for more than 35 years. That is an allegation in the lawsuit, not yet a finding by the court. 

Importantly, filing the lawsuit does not itself mean the August CPT guidance has been struck down. The plaintiffs are asking the court to block the challenged interpretation and restore the previous framework; the litigation is still at an early stage.

What Does the Lawsuit Mean for F-1 and Day 1 CPT Students?

For now, students should continue following the CPT procedures currently used by their university and DSO.

The lawsuit challenges CPT guidance generally—it is not limited to programs commonly described as “Day 1 CPT.” Because Day 1 CPT is not a separate federal immigration category, students using CPT during their first academic term remain subject to the same federal CPT framework and their school’s interpretation of the SEVP guidance.

Graduate students can still fall within the regulatory exception to the usual one-academic-year requirement when their graduate program requires immediate participation in CPT. But eligibility is not automatic, and the DSO must authorize the specific training before employment begins.

Students considering first-semester CPT can also review the Day 1 CPT FAQ and current eligibility guidance.

What Happens Next?

The most important next development will be whether the federal court grants preliminary relief while the lawsuit proceeds.

If the court blocks the August guidance, universities could have to reassess policies they adopted in response to the SEVP messages. If the court declines to intervene, schools may continue applying the narrower interpretation while the underlying case proceeds.

Until there is a court order or new guidance from DHS or ICE, F-1 students should not assume that the lawsuit by itself changes an existing CPT authorization policy. Students whose internship, employment, or graduation plans are affected should confirm their current eligibility directly with their DSO.

Sources:

• NAFSA — NAFSA Joins Lawsuit Challenging Changes to Vital Internship Program for International Students
• Association of American Universities — Resources on the CPT Legal Challenge
• eCFR — 8 CFR § 214.2, F-1 Practical Training Regulations
• MIT International Students Office — F-1 Curricular Practical Training Update
• USC Office of International Services — Important Update Regarding CPT