CPT Lawsuit: Judge Weighs Pause on F-1 Internship Limits After Hearing

A Boston federal judge heard arguments Nov. 6 on suspending SEVP’s CPT broadcasts and took the request under advisement, after universities told the court in a Nov. 4 reply that the guidance has already cost students internships.

The featured image accompanying this article was generated by AI and does not depict real people or events.

Judge Julia E. Kobick heard arguments on Nov. 6 in the CPT lawsuit over F-1 student internships and took the universities’ request to suspend the government’s new Curricular Practical Training limits under advisement, according to a report from the hearing’s public audio line. No ruling has been issued and no decision date has been set. Two days before the hearing, the four higher-education groups suing filed a 21-page reply answering the Department of Homeland Security’s argument, which we reported earlier, that the August Student and Exchange Visitor Program broadcasts are not a rule at all.

What happened at the Nov. 6 hearing

The hearing in Association of American Universities v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 1:26-cv-14520 (D. Mass.), was held in person with a public audio stream the court allowed at the plaintiffs’ request. According to HenryKnows, an F-1 and SEVIS news site that listened to the stream, the judge voiced some skepticism of the government’s positions and said she would consider both sides’ arguments before ruling. The government argued that the broadcasts did not change the CPT regulation, so no notice-and-comment process was required, and that pre-completion Optional Practical Training is a workable alternative for students.

“Under advisement” means the motion has been fully argued and the judge is writing a decision. Until she rules, Broadcast Messages 2608-01 (Aug. 12) and 2608-02 (Aug. 24) remain SEVP’s stated position. We have not been able to review the court’s own minute entry for the hearing, so the account above relies on that single published report.

The universities’ answer: a label does not make it a reminder

The Nov. 4 reply (ECF No. 32), filed by Jenner & Block for AAU, NAFSA, the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration and the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts, says the government’s opposition “rests on the premise that the Broadcasts do nothing new.” The groups make four main points:

The policy did change. Before August, the reply says, schools could authorize CPT for credit-bearing training that was not required for the degree. It cites the preamble to the 1991 rule, which described CPT as training “for which students are awarded academic credits,” and a 2014 SEVP training slide for school officials.
Finality turns on substance. On DHS’s argument that the broadcasts’ disclaimers make them unreviewable under Bennett v. Spear, the reply says “finality turns on an action’s substance, not the label,” and points to the broadcasts’ warning that improper CPT “may subject both the institution and individual DSO[s] to administrative or legal consequences.”
Standing rests on real harm. The groups rely on 15 declarations filed with their motion, which they describe as unrebutted.
Retroactivity. The reply says the government “concedes that the Broadcasts apply only prospectively,” but argues that calling them a clarification of an existing regulation is inconsistent with that concession, and cites a NAFSA declaration describing DHS applying the new standard to past approvals.

The reply also argues that DHS never explained the change or considered schools’ and students’ reliance on the prior practice, which, if accepted, would support a separate arbitrary-and-capricious claim regardless of how the finality question comes out.

What it means for F-1 students and schools

The reply puts numbers on the campus effect that DHS called the schools’ own choices. Citing the universities’ declarations, it says Columbia has had to deny CPT authorization to more than 120 international students, that CPT approvals across the University of Wisconsin have fallen 60 percent, and that only three Washington University schools still have CPT-eligible programs. These figures come from the plaintiffs’ declarations and have not been tested by the court.

For now, nothing has changed for individual students. CPT is still authorized by each school’s designated school official, and schools that narrowed approvals in August have no court order telling them otherwise. Students planning spring or summer placements should ask their international office how it will respond if the court rules either way, and keep their I-20 entries, course registration and a record of how any past CPT fit the curriculum. If CPT is unavailable, pre-completion OPT requires a USCIS work permit and uses up time from the 12 months available after graduation, and the program faces separate pressure from DHS’s proposed OPT fee on schools, whose comment period closes today.

The relief the groups seek is broad: a stay of the broadcasts under 5 U.S.C. 705 and a preliminary injunction barring enforcement against their members, the members’ employees and their students. The reply says the government did not contest the scope of that relief if the broadcasts are found unlawful.

What to watch

The ruling: Judge Kobick has set no date. A stay would restore the pre-August practice while the case proceeds; a ruling for DHS on standing or finality would leave the broadcasts in place without deciding whether their reading of 8 C.F.R. 214.2(f)(10)(i) is correct.
An appeal: Either side could seek review in the First Circuit after the ruling.
School policies: Watch whether universities that paused elective CPT revise their guidance after a decision, and whether SEVP issues any new broadcast.
Spring placements: Employers and students arranging spring and summer internships are working against the clock while the motion is pending.

This article is for general information and is not legal advice.

Sources

Vasanth Vaidyanathan, Esq.

Administrator

Vasanth Vaidyanathan is an immigration attorney with over 20 years of experience focused exclusively on U.S. immigration and nationality law. He holds an LL.M. from California Western School of Law, San Diego and advises individuals and businesses on employment and family-based immigration matters, including H-1B, PERM, EB categories, and adjustment of status. He has also been a featured speaker at immigration seminars across the U.S. To reach Vasanth visit: https://www.vnathan.com/

Author's website Author's posts