On 3 September 2026, U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV heard oral argument in Boston on a motion to block the Department of Homeland Security rule that replaces duration of status with fixed admission periods for F, J and I nonimmigrants. As of publication, five days later, he has not issued a ruling. The rule’s effective date, 15 September 2026, still stands.
What the judge said
Attendees and one plaintiff organization’s own account of the hearing describe Judge Saylor as skeptical of the government’s central justification. Describing the potential harm from the rule’s uncertainty, he said the impact was, in his words, enormous. He also questioned the government’s national security rationale, asking whether the evidence behind it was anecdotal, and remarked that the record showed fewer than half a dozen isolated incidents over nearly fifty years.
Before adjourning, the judge raised the possibility of a brief temporary restraining order to give the court more time to decide, while stating plainly that he had not decided whether to issue one.
These characterizations come from a first-person account published by The NewsGuild-CWA, a co-plaintiff in the case, and are consistent with the more neutral joint statement from NAFSA and its co-plaintiffs, which says the court asked pertinent questions of both sides. Because the NewsGuild account comes from a party to the litigation, treat its framing of who had the stronger argument as advocacy, not as a neutral record. No transcript or written order has been made public.
What plaintiffs argued
The coalition’s counsel argued for both a preliminary injunction halting the rule and a summary judgment finding it unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act. Arguments centered on two groups. For international students, counsel focused on the burden of converting an open-ended admission into a fixed period requiring a separate extension filing. For journalists on I visas, whose maximum admission period drops from five years to 240 days under the rule, counsel argued that a short renewal clock creates pressure on reporters to soften coverage that could be read as critical of the administration, since their published work becomes part of the material reviewed at each renewal.
The government’s position, according to the same accounts, rested on national security. The court’s questions about the strength of that evidentiary record are one reason both sides are now waiting on a written ruling rather than treating the hearing itself as decisive.
What has not changed
No order has been issued. The rule remains scheduled to take effect 15 September 2026, and USCIS has not altered its plan to publish revised editions of Form I-539 and Form I-765 on that date. A separate hearing, on a different motion in the same broader dispute, remains listed on the court’s calendar for 9 September, six days after the argument described here. Reporting that conflates the two dates has circulated; the argument on the preliminary injunction motion itself was heard 3 September.
Anyone in F, J or I status should continue preparing on the assumption that the rule takes effect on schedule. NAFSA keeps a case status page, and the Presidents’ Alliance keeps a litigation tracker, both updated as Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., No. 1:26-cv-13799 (D. Mass.), moves.
