The Trump administration faces a legal challenge over a policy change that would impose a strict four-year limit on how long foreign students and postdocs can remain in the United States, according to a lawsuit filed in federal court.
Groups representing academic institutions and educators filed the suit in the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts on Tuesday. The plaintiffs allege the Department of Homeland Security violated the Administrative Procedure Act, a law that governs how agencies implement new regulations, in its efforts to end a long-standing policy. This previous policy allowed students and scholars to remain in the U.S. for the duration of their training, regardless of how long that took.
The lawsuit argues DHS didn’t give enough time for interested parties to comment on the change. The plaintiffs also claim the department failed to adequately respond to comments and had not proposed a rational response to alleged visa fraud. They requested that a judge either immediately rule the policy change is unlawful or issue a preliminary injunction blocking it from taking effect while a trial moves forward.
Related: Trump Administration Takes Aim at Healthcare Laws
DHS criticized both the lawsuit and news coverage of the planned policy change in a statement provided to STAT. “The performative outrage is incredible. Where was the outrage when foreign nationals were abusing the system, violating the terms of their student visas, and making a mockery of our immigration laws?” said a department spokesperson in an email. “If the media really cared about legitimate international students, they would be thanking President Trump for cracking down on the rampant fraud to ensure only those truly intending to study in the United States are given the privilege.”
Several organizations joined the suit, including the nonprofit NAFSA: Association of International Educators, the President’s Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, and the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts. DHS; Markwayne Mullin, secretary of the department; U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement; and David Venturella, acting director of ICE, are named as defendants.
The case centers around plans to upend duration of status, a policy first implemented in 1979 that allows foreign students and scholars to remain in the U.S. as long as they are making progress toward completing their studies. The Trump administration has stated this practice promotes fraud by creating “forever students” who enroll in courses to avoid leaving the U.S.
Related: How to break the business model of health misinformation
In mid-July, DHS announced that, effective Sept. 15, future international students and postdoctoral researchers will be allowed to stay in the U.S. for no more than four years on nonimmigrant visas unless they apply for and receive an extension. Those already in the U.S. won’t need an extension if their training is set to end before September 2030, even if they’ve been in the country for more than four years.
The lawsuit claims that while DHS alleges international students are abusing the current visa system, they don’t provide evidence that students who’ve remained in the country for extended periods have done anything wrong. Completing a bachelor’s degree followed by a doctorate can easily take more than 10 years, making the new restriction difficult for many legitimate researchers to handle.
The suit also alleged that DHS failed to consider less extreme policy changes that could increase oversight. For instance, the plaintiffs said, the department could have changed the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System, an existing database that has been used for more than two decades to monitor foreign students. They also noted that a tiered approach that only took away duration of status for internationals with a history of noncompliance with visa rules would be less burdensome.
Related: Moderna flu vaccine wins FDA approval
A draft version of the policy change posted last year garnered nearly 22,000 comments. The plaintiffs alleged both that the 32-day comment period was inadequate and that DHS failed to meaningfully respond to concerns raised by the public. When commenters asked the department to more rigorously quantify the costs and benefits of the policy change, including the administrative expenses universities would incur, DHS reportedly said this kind of analysis would be difficult and was not required.
Experts warn the new visa time limits could have a sizable impact on life science research given that internationals accounted for nearly a quarter of the field’s Ph.D. graduates and 59% of postdocs in 2023. A NAFSA poll of students and postdocs found last year that nearly half would not have come to the U.S. under a fixed period of admission.