As of October 21, 2026, the duration of status rule is not in effect. On September 14, 2026, one day before its September 15 effective date, Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts postponed the rule's effective date and barred the Department of Homeland Security from taking any further action to implement it (Preliminary Injunction Order, ECF No. 51). F-1 students and J-1 exchange visitors are still admitted for "duration of status" (D/S) under the existing regulations (8 CFR 214.2, 2025 edition), the government has appealed to the First Circuit, and the district court is moving toward a ruling on the merits.
The order is preliminary. It keeps the old system in place while the case is decided; it does not cancel the rule.
- DHS published the duration of status final rule at 91 FR 44976 on July 17, 2026, with an effective date of September 15, 2026.
- On September 14, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts postponed the rule's effective date under 5 U.S.C. 705 and barred DHS from implementing it.
- The case is Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration v. DHS, No. 1:26-cv-13799-FDS, before Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV.
- The government appealed to the First Circuit on September 30, 2026 (First Circuit No. 26-2112); its opening brief is due November 9, 2026.
- Under the current regulation, F-1 students still get a 60-day period to prepare for departure after completing their program and any practical training.
- If it takes effect, the rule would cap F and J admission periods at four years and cut the F-1 departure period to 30 days.
- Summary judgment motions in the district court are due October 26, 2026, with replies due November 2, 2026.
Is the duration of status rule in effect right now?
No. DHS published the final rule, "Establishing a Fixed Time Period of Admission and an Extension of Stay Procedure for Nonimmigrant Academic Students, Exchange Visitors, and Representatives of Foreign Information Media," at 91 FR 44976 on July 17, 2026, with an effective date of September 15, 2026 (91 FR 44976). The court's order, signed at 4:55 p.m. on September 14, stopped it (ECF No. 51). Its two key paragraphs read:
"3. The effective date of the Final Rule is hereby POSTPONED pending further order of this court or resolution of this proceeding on the merits. 4. Defendants are preliminarily enjoined from taking any further action to implement the Final Rule pending further order of this court or resolution of this proceeding on the merits." Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration v. DHS, No. 1:26-cv-13799-FDS (D. Mass. Sept. 14, 2026), ECF No. 51
The government agrees on the practical effect. In an October 9 filing, its lawyers wrote that "The Final Rule has already been stayed in its entirety nationwide under 5 U.S.C. § 705" (Defendants' brief, ECF No. 59).
So the rules that applied before September 15 still apply. The current regulation defines duration of status for an F-1 student as the time spent pursuing a full course of study at an SEVP-certified school or engaging in authorized practical training after completing studies (8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(i), 2025 edition). As of October 21, 2026, the Federal Register lists no document under the rule's regulation identifier, RIN 1653-AA95, after the July 17 final rule, so DHS has not published a notice setting a new effective date (Federal Register, documents for RIN 1653-AA95).
One caution: the Study in the States quick-facts page on the rule, last updated September 10, 2026, still describes the rule's requirements without mentioning the court order (Study in the States, Final Rule Quick Facts). Explainer pages written before September 14 describe what the rule would do, not what applies today. The same goes for the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: its version of 8 CFR 214.2 from September 15, 2026 onward shows the rule's amended text, including the 30-day F-1 departure period (eCFR, 8 CFR 214.2 as of October 19, 2026). That is the postponed text, not the version the court left in place.
What did the court decide, and why?
The case was filed on August 18, 2026 by the Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, NAFSA: Association of International Educators, and other education and labor groups (Complaint, ECF No. 1). The plaintiffs listed by the court also include the American Federation of Teachers, The NewsGuild-CWA and the United Auto Workers, and the court notes that the government did not contest their standing (Memorandum and Order, ECF No. 50).
The claims arise under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court was explicit that it could not block the rule for being unwise, only for failing to follow the law. It then found:
"Plaintiffs are therefore likely to succeed on the merits of their claims; immediate irreparable harm will ensue if an injunction does not issue; and the balance of equities and public interest favor the issuance of an injunction." Presidents' Alliance v. DHS, Memorandum and Order, ECF No. 50, at 11 (D. Mass. Sept. 14, 2026)
Among its reasons, the court said DHS did not explain how a four-year cap would prevent visa fraud or deter overstays, and failed to consider less drastic alternatives. It described the government's national security rationale as one that "borders on the absurd," and called the 32-day comment period "exceptionally short, and barely legal," noting that about 22,000 commenters responded (ECF No. 50).
On scope, the court took "the more cautious approach" of postponing the effective date under 5 U.S.C. 705 rather than vacating the rule under section 706. It made the relief nationwide because the plaintiffs represent almost 600 institutions out of more than 5,000, and party-only relief would have meant running parallel regulatory regimes (ECF No. 50). The requests for vacatur and summary judgment were denied without prejudice, meaning they can be renewed (ECF No. 51).
What would the duration of status rule change for F-1 students?
Nothing yet. But if the order is lifted, these are the changes DHS adopted. The central one replaces D/S with a fixed admission period:
"Setting the authorized admission and extension periods for F and J nonimmigrants up to the program length, not to exceed a 4-year period;" 91 FR 44976, section II.C, Summary of Changes (July 17, 2026)
SEVP's July 17 broadcast message added that F students would get a 30-day period for arrival and a 30-day period for departure, and that students needing more time, a new program, OPT or STEM OPT would have to apply for an extension of stay with USCIS or leave and be readmitted (SEVP Broadcast Message 2607-02). DHS says it is updating Form I-539 so F, J and I nonimmigrants can apply for an extension with USCIS (91 FR 44976). The court noted that a denial of an extension request would be discretionary and unappealable, citing 91 FR at 45096 (ECF No. 50). DHS says in the rule that this is not new, because the regulations already in place provide that the denial of an extension of stay request may not be appealed (91 FR 44976).
The rule's summary of changes also lists these F-1 provisions (91 FR 44976):
- The departure period after completing a program or post-completion practical training falls from 60 to 30 days.
- Students at the graduate level or above may not change educational objectives, and may not transfer unless SEVP authorizes an exception for extenuating circumstances.
- Students changing objectives or transferring must first complete their first academic year at the school that issued their Form I-20, unless SEVP authorizes an exception.
- A student who has completed a program at one level may begin another F-1 program only at a higher level.
- Language training students are limited to an aggregate 24-month period of stay.
For people already in the United States in D/S on the effective date, the rule provides a transition. They could stay until the program end date on their Form I-20 or DS-2019, for no more than four years from the effective date, plus 60 days for F and 30 days for J nonimmigrants to depart (91 FR 44976, section V.E). SEVP put the outer limit for current F students at November 14, 2030 (SEVP Broadcast Message 2607-02). That date was calculated from a September 15, 2026 effective date, which the court has now postponed.
Does the 60-day F-1 grace period still apply?
Yes. The current regulation, which still governs, says:
"An F-1 student who has completed a course of study and any authorized practical training following completion of studies will be allowed an additional 60-day period to prepare for departure from the United States or to transfer in accordance with paragraph (f)(8) of this section." 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(iv) (2025 edition)
The 30-day F-1 grace period exists only in the postponed rule. If you are timing a job start, a cap-gap period or a change of status around your program end date, our guides to the H-1B cap-gap extension and the STEM OPT extension rules cover how those windows work.
What about J-1 exchange visitors and I media visas?
For J-1 holders, the current regulation already limits admission to the period on Form DS-2019 "plus a period of 30 days for the purposes of travel" (8 CFR 214.2(j)(1)(ii), 2025 edition). The final rule would add the same four-year cap that applies to F students, require J-1s whose program end date is shortened to leave or maintain status within 30 days, and let J-1s authorized to work for a specific employer keep working for up to 240 days while a timely extension is pending (91 FR 44976).
For I visas, the rule would replace D/S with a fixed period of no more than 240 days, with an exception for some I nonimmigrants from the People's Republic of China (91 FR 44976).
The scale is large. Citing the rule, the court counted about 1.6 million students and dependents in F status, 504,000 J nonimmigrants and 24,000 I nonimmigrants (ECF No. 50).
What happens next in the duration of status case?
Two tracks are running at once.
The appeal. The government filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on September 30, 2026 (Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 53), docketed as First Circuit No. 26-2112 (CourtListener docket feed). According to the plaintiffs' October 9 filing, the First Circuit resolved the government's assented-to motion to expedite that day, setting deadlines that will run once a briefing schedule is entered, and the plaintiffs expected briefing to conclude "in mid-December or later, with oral argument to follow" (Plaintiffs' proposed schedule, ECF No. 60). On October 19, 2026, the First Circuit set an expedited briefing schedule, with the government's brief and appendix due November 9, 2026 (First Circuit docket feed, No. 26-2112).
The merits in district court. After an October 2 status conference, the court asked both sides for a proposed path forward (CourtListener docket feed). The government asked the court to pause the case during the appeal and argued that any final relief should be limited to the plaintiffs (ECF No. 59). The plaintiffs asked for a final judgment vacating the rule under section 706 (ECF No. 60). On October 16, the court set a schedule: the administrative record by October 23, summary judgment motions by October 26, and replies by November 2, 2026 (Order, ECF No. 61).
| Item | Document | Status on October 21, 2026 |
|---|---|---|
| Duration of status final rule | 91 FR 44976 (July 17, 2026) | Final, but effective date postponed; not in force |
| Postponement and injunction | D. Mass. ECF Nos. 50 and 51 (Sept. 14, 2026) | In force nationwide pending further order or a merits decision |
| Government appeal | First Circuit No. 26-2112 (notice filed Sept. 30, 2026) | Pending; expedited schedule set Oct. 19, government brief due Nov. 9 |
| Summary judgment | D. Mass. ECF No. 61 (Oct. 16, 2026) | Motions due Oct. 26; replies due Nov. 2 |
| 60-day F-1 departure period | 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(iv) | Current law |
Either court could change the picture. A First Circuit stay or reversal could let the rule take effect. A final judgment for the plaintiffs could set the rule aside, subject to the government's appeal rights.
What this means for you
For now, nothing about your status changes. You do not need to file a Form I-539 under the new rule, and the 60-day F-1 departure period still applies. The risk is timing: the rule could take effect with little notice if an appeals court acts, so plans that depend on the old rules, such as a long PhD, a program change or a gap between OPT and the next status, deserve a second look.
Keep the case separate from other changes. The order covers only the rule published at 91 FR 44976 (ECF No. 51). The 2026 CPT guidance and its own lawsuit and the proposed OPT fee are separate matters. If you are weighing a move off student status altogether, our guide to switching from OPT to an O-1 covers timing and travel.
- Keep your Form I-20 or DS-2019 program end date accurate and talk to your DSO before it passes.
- After any reentry, check that your I-94 admission record shows D/S, and raise any fixed date with your DSO.
- If you are a graduate student planning to change programs or transfer, discuss timing with your DSO now.
- Watch the district court filings due October 26 and November 2, 2026, and the government's First Circuit brief due November 9, 2026.
- Treat explainer pages written before September 14, 2026 as describing the postponed rule, not current law.
- Ask your attorney how a change in the case would affect your specific dates.
Where to start
If uncertainty about student status has you thinking about a longer-term route, start with the free evaluation to see how your record compares with the O-1, EB-1A and EB-2 NIW criteria. Frank, our AI assistant, then finds real opportunities for the criteria you are missing. When you are ready, petitions are reviewed and filed by our partner law firm, Lai & Turner.
Sources
All checked October 21, 2026.
- DHS, Establishing a Fixed Time Period of Admission and an Extension of Stay Procedure, Final Rule, 91 FR 44976 (July 17, 2026). The rule's effective date, summary of changes and transition provisions.
- Presidents' Alliance v. DHS, No. 1:26-cv-13799-FDS, Preliminary Injunction Order, ECF No. 51 (D. Mass. Sept. 14, 2026). The postponement and injunction, quoted above.
- Presidents' Alliance v. DHS, Memorandum and Order, ECF No. 50 (D. Mass. Sept. 14, 2026). The court's reasoning, scope of relief and population figures.
- Presidents' Alliance v. DHS, Complaint, ECF No. 1 (D. Mass. Aug. 18, 2026). Filing date and plaintiffs.
- Presidents' Alliance v. DHS, Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 53 (D. Mass. Sept. 30, 2026). The appeal to the First Circuit.
- Presidents' Alliance v. DHS, Defendants' Briefing on Case Management, ECF No. 59 (D. Mass. Oct. 9, 2026). The government's request to pause the case and its description of the stay.
- Presidents' Alliance v. DHS, Plaintiffs' Proposed Schedule and Procedural Plan, ECF No. 60 (D. Mass. Oct. 9, 2026). The First Circuit's expedited schedule and the request for vacatur.
- Presidents' Alliance v. DHS, Order on Certification of Administrative Record and Supplemental Briefing, ECF No. 61 (D. Mass. Oct. 16, 2026). The summary judgment schedule.
- CourtListener, docket feed for No. 1:26-cv-13799 (updated Oct. 16, 2026). First Circuit case number and the October 2 status conference.
- CourtListener, First Circuit docket feed for No. 26-2112 (updated Oct. 19, 2026). The October 9 order on the motion to expedite and the October 19 expedited briefing schedule.
- eCFR, 8 CFR 214.2 as of October 19, 2026 (checked October 21, 2026). Shows the rule's amended text from September 15, 2026 despite the postponement.
- 8 CFR 214.2, 2025 edition, via govinfo (revised as of January 1, 2025). The current D/S definition, 60-day F-1 departure period and J-1 30-day travel period.
- SEVP Broadcast Message 2607-02 (July 17, 2026). Arrival and departure periods under the rule and the November 14, 2030 transition date.
- Study in the States, Final Rule Quick Facts (last updated September 10, 2026). Agency explainer that predates the court order.
- Federal Register, documents for RIN 1653-AA95 (checked October 21, 2026). No DHS document on the rule after July 17, 2026.
Frequently asked questions
Is the duration of status rule blocked permanently?
No. The September 14, 2026 order postpones the rule's effective date and bars DHS from implementing it until the court orders otherwise or decides the case on the merits. It is a preliminary order, not a final judgment. The government has appealed to the First Circuit, and the district court has set summary judgment briefing for late October and early November 2026, so the rule's status could change in either court.
Do F-1 students still get the 60-day grace period?
Yes, for now. Because the final rule has not taken effect, the existing regulation still applies, and it gives an F-1 student who has completed a course of study and any authorized practical training an additional 60-day period to prepare for departure or transfer. The final rule would cut that period to 30 days, but only if a court lifts the September 14, 2026 order or the government wins the case.
Would the four-year limit apply to students already in the United States?
Under the final rule's transition provisions, F and J holders admitted for duration of status and present on the effective date could stay until the program end date on their Form I-20 or DS-2019, for up to four years from the effective date, plus 60 days for F and 30 days for J nonimmigrants. Anyone needing more time would have to apply to USCIS for an extension of stay or leave the country and seek readmission. None of this applies while the court order stands.
Does the court order affect the CPT guidance or the OPT fee proposal?
No. The order defines the Final Rule as the DHS rule published at 91 FR 44976 on July 17, 2026, and postpones only that rule. Separate SEVP guidance on curricular practical training and the separate proposal on OPT fees are different documents with their own status, so check each one on its own rather than assuming this case covers them.
Green Card Guide AI is not a law firm and this article is not legal advice. It describes evidence-building strategy in general terms; your attorney determines what belongs in your petition and how it's argued.
