The D/S rule is paused nationwide, and F-1 and J-1 students still stay under D/S. In the district court, both sides have asked the judge to decide the case on the written record without a trial: plaintiffs want the whole rule vacated (struck down), and the government, in its final reply on November 2, asks to win outright. The government also offered two fallbacks: if the court finds problems, send the rule back to DHS for a fuller explanation while keeping it in place, or limit the protection to members of the schools and groups that sued. Plaintiffs also responded on November 2, arguing that DHS inadequately assessed costs and benefits, SEVIS alternatives and public comments, and that the 32-day comment period was too short. They ask the court to strike down the whole rule. The court has not ruled yet. In the appeals court, the government’s brief and appendix are due November 9.
Who is affected
F, J and I visa holders, their families, schools and employers. The pause applies nationwide and protects every student, not only those at the schools that sued.
Keep in mind
A stay pauses the rule before the court’s final ruling; the final ruling could strike the rule down or uphold it. The August CPT guidance is a separate matter and still applies.
Next to watch
2026-11-09 · Government’s brief and appendix due in the First Circuit.
Policy background
00 / BACKGROUND
First, what the rule does. Today, when an F-1 student enters the U.S., the I-94 says D/S: as long as you study by the rules and keep your status, you can stay, with no fixed end date. DHS proposed a change in August 2025 and published the final rule (2026-14439) on July 17, 2026. It would set a fixed period of stay instead: if you are still studying when it runs out, you apply to USCIS for an extension. It also limits transfers and switching degree level mid-program. It was set to start September 15.
Then, the lawsuit. On August 18, a group of universities and organizations sued in federal court in Massachusetts. At 4:55 p.m. ET on September 14, the court issued a preliminary injunction: it postponed the entire rule nationwide and barred DHS/ICE from enforcing it until the court orders otherwise or issues a final ruling. The September 15 start date is off. The court’s opinion (pp. 46–48) grants nationwide relief, not just relief for students at the schools that sued, and page 42 finds the rule “arbitrary and capricious,” the usual Administrative Procedure Act (APA) test for an unlawful rule, meaning the government did not give adequate reasons. At that stage the court paused the rule but did not permanently vacate it (strike it down for good); that is what the final ruling will decide.
The government appealed to the First Circuit on September 30 (No. 26-2112) on a fast track: its brief and appendix are due November 9 (the appendix collects the key district-court documents for the appeals court), plaintiffs answer within 30 days of receiving it, and the government replies within 10 days after that. The pause stays in place during the appeal.
The district court is moving toward a final ruling at the same time. After it set a written schedule, the government turned over the administrative record on October 23, meaning all the material DHS relied on to write the rule. On October 30 both sides asked the court to decide the case on the papers. Plaintiffs’ supplemental memorandum argues that DHS ignored what the SEVIS system can already track, that the transfer and degree-change limits are unlawful, and that the whole rule should be struck down. On November 2 the government filed its final reply, arguing that SEVIS cannot replace the periodic review the rule requires and that DHS may set periods of stay.
Plaintiffs also responded to the government on November 2. They argue that DHS did not adequately weigh the rule’s costs and benefits or consider less burdensome options such as improving oversight through SEVIS. They also argue that DHS disregarded significant public comments and allowed only 32 days for comments on a complex rule, too little time. They ask the court to deny the government’s request for judgment and strike down the whole rule. The court will decide which side wins; the nationwide pause remains in force.
In Congress, Senator Durbin and colleagues introduced S.J.Res.213 on September 14 to overturn the rule under the Congressional Review Act (CRA); the House version is H.J.Res.215. On September 17 S.J.Res.213 was placed on the Senate calendar (No. 668); there has been no vote. It would take effect only if both chambers pass it and the President signs it, or Congress overrides a veto.
On November 6, the government filed an index and excerpts of the administrative record cited in its earlier request for judgment. These are materials the government used in making the rule, now submitted for the judge to review. The nationwide stay remains in force.
Potential impact
01 / IMPACT
OUR TAKE · ANALYSIS
The D/S rule is paused nationwide; nothing changes for now.
The pause covers the whole rule: fixed stay periods, extra extension filings and limits on transferring or changing degree level are all on hold. Students just keep maintaining their status and following work-authorization rules as usual. The case can go three ways from here: the district court strikes the rule down, upholds it, or sends it back to DHS to fix; the appeals court could also change the pause. We will update this page whichever way it goes.
Still studying when your permitted stay runs out?
Research and dissertations do not always finish on schedule. If you have to apply separately to extend your stay, preparing the paperwork and waiting for approval become part of your academic plan.
For example · Hypothetical
Wang’s school lets him take another year to finish his PhD. Under the new rule, his permitted stay would have a fixed end date; if graduation falls after it, he would also have to ask USCIS for an extension. The school’s approval does not extend his immigration stay.
Applying for OPT may also mean filing to extend your stay
Under the new rule, applying for OPT would usually also mean filing an I-539 to extend your stay. Whether the two line up affects your start date; people already on D/S when the rule starts would follow separate transition rules.
For example · Hypothetical
Lin graduates in May and plans to start work on OPT in July. Under the new rule, the OPT application and the stay extension would usually go together: one covers working, the other how long she can stay. For the first six months after the rule starts, a transition rule means not everyone has to file both at once.
Want a second master’s or to transfer? There would be limits
The rule bars graduate students from switching degree level mid-program and limits transfers; the ban on enrolling at the same or a lower level counts only degrees earned after the rule starts. These limits block student status first, and the OPT or CPT that depends on it goes with it.
Example 1 · Hypothetical
Chen wants to leave a PhD, take a master’s and use it for OPT. The rule bars switching degree level mid-program. Rice explains that it can award the master’s but cannot change his SEVIS record from doctoral to master’s, and without that change he cannot get OPT based on the master’s. Having the diploma does not help.
Example 2 · Hypothetical
Say Li earns a U.S. master’s after the rule starts, misses the H-1B lottery while on OPT and plans a second master’s with Day 1 CPT. The rule bars getting or keeping F-1 status through a program at the same or a lower level, so Li could not get student status for the second master’s, let alone CPT. Degrees earned before the rule starts do not count.
Two things to watch: the district court’s decision on both sides’ requests to rule on the written record, and the government’s November 9 brief to the appeals court. Until a ruling comes, the nationwide pause stays in place.
What happens in each case?
Pick a situation to see what it would mean for you. The three are side-by-side possibilities, in no particular order.
IF THIS HAPPENS A · Pause continues
D/S continues as before
Assumption: The court leaves its order in place.
Potential effects in this scenario
The rule stays on hold while the case goes on.
Signals to watch
Later court orders and immigration-agency notices.
These scenarios are our analysis and get updated as new documents come out.
What would change this analysis?
Nationwide scope
The opinion (pp. 46–48) says the pause covers every student nationwide, not just students at the schools that sued.
Duration
Until the court orders otherwise or issues a final ruling.
CPT guidance
The order covers the D/S rule (2026-14439); the August CPT guidance and schools’ own rules still apply.
Progress
03 / Federal rulemaking
On September 14 the court postponed the entire rule nationwide and barred DHS/ICE from enforcing it until further order or a final ruling. The September 15 start date is off.
Currently waiting for
The district court’s ruling and the government’s November 9 brief and appendix in the appeals court.
Last completed · Final rule
The agency publishes the final rule: the finished text, its response to comments and the start date.
Litigation · Parallel judicial review
The lawsuit runs alongside rulemaking. A court order could pause the rule or delay when it starts.
Lawsuit filed
Government opposes
Hearing; no ruling yet
Nationwide stay
Both sides seek judgment
Government reply filed
Key dates
04 / TIMELINE
DHS published the proposed rule.
DHS published the final rule.
A coalition of universities and other plaintiffs filed suit in federal court in Massachusetts.
The government filed its opposition, asking the court not to pause the rule.
The court heard arguments and did not rule from the bench.
The court issued a preliminary injunction postponing the entire rule nationwide and barring enforcement.
Lawmakers introduced resolutions to overturn the rule (S.J.Res.213 in the Senate, H.J.Res.215 in the House).
S.J.Res.213 was placed on the Senate calendar (No. 668).
DHS/ICE and others appealed to the First Circuit (No. 26-2112); the pause stays in place.
Status conference held; the court asked both sides for next-step proposals by October 9.
Both sides filed proposals: the government asked to pause the district case until the appeal is decided; plaintiffs objected and asked for a quick ruling striking down the rule.
The court set a schedule: administrative record by October 23, judgment requests by October 26, replies by November 2.
The First Circuit set the government’s brief and appendix for November 9.
The court moved judgment requests to October 30 and kept replies due November 2; the government turned over the administrative record.
Both sides asked the court to decide the case on the written record.
The government filed its final reply asking to win; as a fallback, it asks to send the rule back to DHS while keeping it, and to narrow who is protected.
Plaintiffs responded to the government, challenged the cost-benefit analysis, SEVIS alternatives and public-comment process, and asked the court to strike down the whole rule.
The government filed an index and excerpts of the administrative record cited in its earlier request for judgment.