The End of Duration of Status for F-1 and J-1 Visa Holders: What the DHS Rule Would Change, and Where Things Stand After the Federal Court Injunction

Status as of September 15, 2026: A federal district court in Massachusetts issued a nationwide preliminary injunction on September 14, 2026, one day before the DHS rule was scheduled to take effect. The rule is currently blocked. F-1 students and J-1 exchange visitors continue to be admitted under the existing Duration of Status framework while the litigation proceeds. This article explains the full scope of what the rule would have changed and what you need to monitor going forward.

Four Decades of Duration of Status

Since the late 1970s, the United States has admitted F-1 international students and J-1 exchange visitors under a framework known as Duration of Status, or D/S. Rather than receiving a specific end date for their stay, these visa holders were authorized to remain in the United States for as long as they maintained the conditions of their status, typically meaning continuous full-time enrollment in an approved academic program and compliance with all SEVIS reporting requirements.

When a student arrived at a U.S. port of entry, Customs and Border Protection would stamp “D/S” on the I-94 arrival record rather than a specific calendar date. That notation meant the student could remain indefinitely provided they stayed in status. This system gave international students meaningful flexibility: students who extended their programs, changed majors, transferred schools, or pursued additional degrees could do so within the SEVIS system without separately filing immigration applications with USCIS.

This framework was foundational to the way American universities recruited and retained international students. Over one million international students were enrolled in U.S. higher education institutions in the most recent academic year, contributing an estimated $40 billion to the U.S. economy annually. The D/S system was one of the structural reasons U.S. universities competed effectively for global talent against institutions in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia.

The DHS Final Rule: What It Would Change

On July 17, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security published a final rule in the Federal Register titled “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.” The rule was scheduled to take effect on September 15, 2026.

DHS justified the rule primarily on oversight grounds. The agency argued that the D/S framework made it difficult for immigration officers to determine whether F and J visa holders were still actively pursuing their authorized programs, and cited overstay rates among students and exchange visitors as a systemic concern. After receiving nearly 22,000 public comments on the proposed rule, the vast majority critical, DHS published the final rule with few substantive modifications.

The rule would have made the following changes, all of which remain enjoined as of the date of this article:

• Replacement of D/S with a fixed Admit Until Date (AUD). Beginning September 15, 2026, F-1 and J-1 visa holders entering the United States would no longer receive a D/S notation. Instead, CBP would issue an I-94 with a specific Admit Until Date, set at whichever is shorter: the program end date listed on the student’s Form I-20 or DS-2019, or four years from the date of entry.
• Shortened grace period. The 60-day grace period that F-1 students currently receive after completing their academic program would be reduced to 30 days. Students must depart, apply for an extension of stay, change status, or begin authorized practical training within that shorter window.
• Extension of stay through USCIS or port of entry. Students who need additional time beyond their AUD, whether to complete a delayed program, begin a new degree, or engage in practical training, would be required to either file a Form I-539 (Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status) with USCIS or depart the United States and seek re-admission at a port of entry under the new framework.
• Restrictions on school transfers and program changes. Undergraduate and other pre-graduate students would be prohibited from transferring schools or changing academic programs before completing their first year of study, unless SEVP authorized an exception for extenuating circumstances. Graduate students would face a categorical prohibition on transferring schools or changing programs without a SEVP-granted exception.
• Restrictions on degree level changes. Students who complete a degree in the United States after September 15, 2026 would be permitted only to advance to a higher degree level. Pursuing an additional degree at the same or lower level, such as a second bachelor’s degree or a second master’s degree in a different field, would not be permitted under the rule.
• Limits on English language training. Students enrolled in English language training programs would be subject to a maximum 24-month enrollment limit, including vacation periods.
• Dependent status tied to the principal. F-2 and J-2 dependents, including spouses and children of F-1 and J-1 holders, would receive AUDs tied to the principal visa holder’s authorized stay. Extensions for dependents would be required alongside any extension filed for the principal.

The Transition Rules for Students Already in the United States

Because the rule recognized that hundreds of thousands of students were already present in the United States under D/S, DHS incorporated a set of transition provisions designed to avoid stranding students mid-program. Understanding these provisions is important even now, because if the injunction is ultimately lifted and the rule takes effect, these transition rules will govern the students most immediately affected.

• Students in D/S status who remain in the U.S. without traveling. A student who was in valid D/S status on September 15, 2026 and does not travel internationally may remain under the existing D/S framework until their program end date, the completion of any approved OPT or STEM OPT, or November 14, 2030, whichever comes first. No immediate filing is required.
• Students who travel internationally after September 15, 2026. This is the critical trigger. Any F-1 or J-1 student who departs the United States and re-enters on or after September 15, 2026 will be transitioned to the new AUD framework upon re-entry. Their I-94 will carry a fixed Admit Until Date rather than the D/S notation, and the full restrictions of the new rule will apply to them from that point forward.
• OPT applications filed before September 15, 2026. Students who applied for Optional Practical Training before the effective date may continue working through the end date on their OPT authorization. They are not required to file a Form I-539 alongside their I-765.
• Post-completion OPT filed by March 18, 2027. Students filing for post-completion OPT within six months of the effective date, and who have not traveled internationally after September 15, need file only the standard Form I-765. The I-539 extension requirement does not apply.
• Post-completion OPT filed after March 18, 2027. Students who wait beyond this window must file both the I-765 and a Form I-539 to obtain OPT authorization.
• Students who travel internationally at any point after September 15, 2026. If you travel outside the United States and re-enter on or after September 15, 2026, you must file both an I-539 and an I-765 to apply for OPT, regardless of when you file.

The Legal Challenge and the Preliminary Injunction

On August 18, 2026, a broad coalition of higher education organizations and labor unions filed a complaint and motion for preliminary injunction in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The plaintiffs included NAFSA: Association of International Educators, the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, the American Federation of Teachers, the United Auto Workers, the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts, and several other organizations collectively representing millions of students, faculty, and institutional members.

Twenty states filed an amicus brief in support of the lawsuit, including New York, California, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, and twelve others. The breadth of opposition reflected the scale of the rule’s potential impact on state economies, public universities, and state labor markets that depend heavily on international student enrollment.

The legal arguments center on the Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiffs contend that DHS failed to adequately assess the rule’s costs and benefits, provided an inadequate comment period, failed to meaningfully respond to the nearly 22,000 public comments submitted, failed to consider less burdensome alternatives, and exceeded its statutory authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The plaintiffs also argue that the rule’s restrictions on school transfers and degree-level changes have no basis in the statutory framework governing F-1 status.

On September 14, 2026, one day before the rule was scheduled to take effect, U.S. District Judge Dennis Saylor IV issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking DHS and ICE from implementing or enforcing the rule. The court found that the plaintiffs demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claims and that immediate irreparable harm would result if the rule were allowed to take effect. The injunction is nationwide in scope.

While the preliminary injunction is in effect, the existing D/S framework continues to apply. F-1 and J-1 students continue to be admitted for Duration of Status, their I-94s continue to carry the D/S notation, and the rules governing OPT, school transfers, program changes, and grace periods remain as they were before the rule was published. The next hearing in the case was scheduled for October 2, 2026.

What the Injunction Does Not Do

The preliminary injunction is a significant legal victory for the plaintiffs, but it is important to understand precisely what it means and what it does not.

• The rule is paused, not invalidated. A preliminary injunction halts enforcement while the litigation proceeds. It is not a final ruling on the merits. The court has found that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed, but the case has not yet been fully adjudicated. The rule could still take effect if the injunction is lifted on appeal or if DHS prevails at the merits stage.
• DHS can appeal. The government can seek a stay of the injunction from the First Circuit Court of Appeals or can appeal the district court’s ruling. Either path could result in the injunction being modified or reversed, though DHS would face the same legal arguments that the district court found persuasive.
• DHS could reissue a revised rule. Even if the current rule is ultimately struck down, DHS retains the authority to promulgate a revised rule through a new notice-and-comment proceeding that addresses the procedural and substantive deficiencies identified by the court. A revised rule would be subject to the same APA requirements and could face similar legal challenges.
• The litigation timeline is uncertain. Immigration regulatory litigation can move quickly or slowly depending on the court’s docket and the government’s litigation strategy. Students and institutions should not assume the current D/S framework is permanently preserved on the basis of the preliminary injunction alone.

What Students and Institutions Should Do Now

The injunction means that no immediate action is required as a result of this rule. However, the uncertainty that surrounds the litigation makes advance planning critical. The following guidance reflects the current legal landscape:

• Continue complying with all existing F-1 and J-1 requirements. The injunction preserves the pre-rule status quo. All current requirements, including SEVIS reporting, full-time enrollment, timely OPT and STEM OPT filings, and proper maintenance of status, remain fully in effect. Nothing about the injunction relaxes any existing compliance obligation.
• Consult your Designated School Official (DSO) or Responsible Officer (RO) before making any decisions about travel, program changes, or school transfers. Even while the injunction is in effect, the underlying rule has not been eliminated. If the injunction is lifted suddenly, the transition provisions will govern what happens to students based on their specific facts and timelines. Your DSO or RO can help you understand your position under both frameworks.
• Think carefully before traveling internationally. This is the most urgent practical point. If the injunction is lifted while you are abroad, re-entering the United States would subject you to the new rule and trigger a fixed AUD. Given the litigation uncertainty, any international travel by students currently in D/S status should be carefully evaluated with counsel before departure.
• Monitor SEVIS and your I-20 or DS-2019 dates carefully. Regardless of how the litigation resolves, staying current on your program dates, OPT timelines, and any required SEVIS updates is essential. Gaps in documentation create vulnerability regardless of which legal framework applies.
• File any OPT applications on time and early. USCIS processing times are lengthy and unpredictable. OPT applications should be filed as early as the regulations permit, currently up to 90 days before program end date. The risk of a processing delay creating a gap in work authorization is real.
• Institutions should prepare for both scenarios. University international offices, compliance teams, and legal counsel should have operational plans in place for both a continued injunction and a potential lifting of the injunction. The transition provisions in the rule are complex, and the institutions that are best positioned are those that have already worked through the logistics.

The Broader Context

The D/S rule does not exist in a vacuum. It is part of a broader pattern of immigration policy changes in 2026 that have created significant uncertainty for international students, foreign workers, and their families. Earlier this year, USCIS issued a policy memorandum reframing adjustment of status as extraordinary discretionary relief, making the path from student status to a green card more difficult. Federal courts have been active in checking executive agency overreach across immigration, as reflected in the Dorcas ruling in Rhode Island and the Massachusetts ruling striking down the $100,000 H-1B fee, both of which we have written about separately.

For international students specifically, the environment requires active engagement with legal counsel rather than passive reliance on historical practices. Rules that have been stable for decades are under review, and the pace of change is faster than the pace at which guidance is issued. Students and institutions that treat these developments as background noise rather than matters requiring active response are the ones most likely to find themselves with serious problems.

Questions About F-1 or J-1 Status, OPT, or the D/S Rule?

Parandian Law advises international students, exchange visitors, and institutions on F-1 and J-1 compliance, OPT and STEM OPT applications, status extensions, and all aspects of U.S. immigration law. We are monitoring this litigation closely and advising clients on how to position themselves under both the current framework and any future rule that may take effect.

If you have questions about how these developments affect your specific situation, contact our White Plains office at (914) 793-2626 or click the link below for a consultation.