A Judge Stopped the Four-Year Cap on Foreign Student Visas the Night Before It Took Effect. He Said DHS's National Security Argument 'Borders on the Absurd' and the Damage Would Be 'Catastrophic.'

A federal judge in Boston blocked the Trump administration's rule capping how long international students, exchange visitors and foreign journalists can stay in the United States, issuing a nationwide preliminary injunction late Monday night, hours before the regulation was to take effect on Tuesday. U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV wrote in a 48-page order that the Department of Homeland Security had failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act in multiple respects, had not adequately responded to public comments or considered alternatives, and had shown no rational connection between the rule and the national security goals it invoked.

"The government's contention that the rule is necessary to safeguard national security borders on the absurd," Saylor wrote. "It is based almost entirely on a small handful of anecdotes, each of which involved incidents that the new rule would do nothing to prevent or even mitigate." He found the rule would "substantially restrict the overall number of foreign students, researchers, professors, and journalists in the United States" and warned that "the damage to the higher education system and to the economy of the United States is likely to be catastrophic."

The regulation, finalized July 17, would have ended the "duration of status" framework under which F-1 students and J-1 exchange visitors in good standing may remain until they finish their programs, a policy in place for nearly 50 years. In its place, DHS set fixed admission periods capped at four years for F-1 and J-1 holders and 240 days for I-visa foreign media representatives, with Chinese journalists limited to 90 days. Anyone needing more time would have to apply for an extension or leave and re-enter. The rule also capped English-language students at 24 months, cut the post-study grace period from 60 days to 30, restricted undergraduates from changing majors or institutions in their first year, and limited graduate students' ability to change educational objectives. DHS itself estimated the compliance costs at $443 million a year. The first Trump administration proposed the same change but never finalized it.

The lawsuit, Presidents' Alliance et al. v. DHS, was filed in the District of Massachusetts by eight organizations: the Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, NAFSA: Association of International Educators, the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts, the American Federation of Teachers, graduate-worker and auto-worker unions, and the NewsGuild-CWA. More than a dozen institutions filed declarations describing harm the rule was already causing before it took effect, particularly to Ph.D. students, whose programs routinely run five years or more. The rule drew about 22,000 public comments, most in opposition. International students contributed $42.9 billion to the U.S. economy in the 2024-25 academic year and supported more than 355,000 jobs, according to figures cited in the case.

Saylor was careful to frame the injunction as a procedural ruling rather than a policy judgment, even as he described the regulation as "misguided," "ill-advised" and "questionable." "The role of the judiciary is not to ensure that the executive branch does not make unwise decisions," he wrote. He also noted repeatedly that DHS had offered no response to several of the plaintiffs' arguments, and found that the rule would give department officials discretion to cut short academic programs "with no possibility of appeal," in violation of statutory obligations.

Miriam Feldblum, president and CEO of the Presidents' Alliance, said the decision "recognizes the serious and irreparable harm this rule would cause" and "preserves the longstanding system that enables our colleges and universities, and our country, to attract, educate and retain global talent." The order postpones the rule while the case proceeds on the merits; the plaintiffs are seeking to vacate it outright. A status conference is set for Oct. 2. DHS did not immediately respond to the ruling.