The US government plans to seek an expedited appeal against a court order halting new time limits for international students, while higher education groups push for a final judgment on the contested policy.
At an October 2 status conference, government lawyers indicated they wanted to accelerate proceedings in the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and pause the case in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts, according to the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration.
The plaintiffs instead want a prompt district court judgment, allowing the issues to proceed together on appeal. Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV directed both sides to submit their positions on the next steps by October 9.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) filed its notice of appeal on September 30, challenging Saylor’s intervention earlier that month.
That filing does not bring the restrictions into force. The existing duration-of-status framework remains in place, allowing eligible international students to continue their studies and authorised practical training while maintaining their immigration status.
These changes will create significant uncertainty and administrative burdens for international students, exchange visitors, and the institutions that support them
Presidents’ Alliance
Published on July 17, the regulation would replace that framework with admission periods of up to four years for international students and exchange visitors. Those needing additional time would have to seek government approval for an extension.
Beyond the length of stay, the measures would restrict institutional transfers, changes to graduate students’ educational objectives and further study at the same or a lower qualification level. Foreign journalists would also face separate fixed admission limits.
Eight organisations representing higher education, labour and journalism brought the challenge on August 18, arguing that DHS failed to properly assess the consequences, address public objections or consider less burdensome alternatives.
Setting out its concerns about the policy, the Presidents’ Alliance warned: “These changes will create significant uncertainty and administrative burdens for international students, exchange visitors, and the institutions that support them.”
Saylor granted preliminary relief on September 14, a day before implementation was due. He found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in showing the rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act and that its implementation would cause irreparable harm.
DHS has defended fixed admission periods as a means of protecting national security and preventing fraud and abuse. The judge found that the department had not adequately demonstrated how its restrictions would achieve those objectives.
The potential consequences also extend to university finances. As The PIE News reported in August, Fitch Ratings warned that lower international enrolments could weaken operating performance at institutions reliant on overseas tuition fees, which can be difficult to replace quickly.
The agency expected the sector-wide credit impact to remain limited, with financially resilient universities better placed to absorb fluctuations.
Institutions with weaker demand, limited financial flexibility and substantial international cohorts particularly on graduate programs, faced greater exposure.
The dispute coincides with a separate legal challenge over student internships. As reported on October 8, four higher education associations have sued federal agencies over changes to Curricular Practical Training (CPT) requirements, which they say exclude placements not compulsory for every student on a program.
The time needed to complete a qualification remains a central concern for critics. In comments reported in August, Terra Dotta’s senior vice-president of enterprise solutions, Travis Ulrich, said: “Another huge issue is that the new rule contradicts how American higher education actually works.”
