US Judge Halts Trump Visa Rule That Could Have Hit Indian Students Hard

A US federal judge has temporarily blocked a Trump administration rule that would have imposed stricter limits on how long foreign students, exchange visitors and journalists can stay in the United States, providing relief to thousands of international students, including many from India. The ruling came on September 14, just a day before the new rules were due to take effect.

US District Judge F Dennis Saylor IV in Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction halting implementation of the rule while the legal challenge continues. Saylor warned that the policy could cause “catastrophic” damage to the US economy and higher education system and rejected the Trump administration’s argument that the changes were necessary to protect national security.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) finalised the rule in July. It sought to replace the nearly 50 year old “duration of status” system with fixed periods of admission. F visas for international students and J visas for exchange visitors would have been limited to four years, while I visas for foreign journalists would have been limited to 240 days. Chinese journalists would have faced a 90 day limit.

Under the proposed system, students and journalists could seek extensions, but approval would have been left to DHS officials. There would have been no appeal process if an extension was denied. The changes could have particularly affected PhD students, researchers and exchange participants whose programmes extend beyond four years.

For now, the court order means the existing duration of status system remains in place. International students and exchange visitors can continue under the current rules while the case proceeds, rather than being forced into the new fixed four year system.

The lawsuit was brought by a coalition of higher education organisations and labour groups representing nearly 600 public and private institutions. Saylor rejected the administration’s request to limit the injunction only to the plaintiffs. He said doing so could create parallel regulatory systems and force officials to repeatedly determine which students and institutions were covered.

The judge also questioned the government's national security justification, describing DHS's reasoning as exceptionally weak and saying the agency had failed to adequately consider less restrictive alternatives.

Saylor raised particular concerns about the journalist restrictions. He noted the possibility that visas of foreign journalists critical of the government, or DHS officials, could be denied renewal. He said the weak connection between the rule and its stated objectives raised questions about whether its real purpose could include greater government control over academic institutions and the press.

DHS has defended the rule, arguing that fixed visa periods would help combat fraud and make it easier to identify people who overstay their visas. DHS General Counsel James Percival criticised the ruling, arguing that the existing system allows people to misuse student visas by taking minimal classes and remaining in the US for years.

The higher education sector had warned that the changes could hurt American universities and the wider economy. International students contributed about $43 billion to the US economy in 2024-25 and supported more than 355,000 jobs, according to figures cited in current reporting.

Harvard President Alan M Garber had earlier called the four year student visa cap “odd”, noting that a typical PhD programme usually takes at least six years.

The injunction is temporary and does not permanently strike down the rule. The legal challenge will continue, with a further hearing scheduled for October 2. The Trump administration could also appeal the ruling.