A federal judge in Boston Monday postponed a Trump administration policy, one day before it was set to take effect, that would restrict the number of years international students can study in the United States.
For decades, international students have been admitted to study in the United States on visas that were valid as long as a student was enrolled in a program, with no time constraint. But in July, the Department of Homeland Security announced that starting Sept. 15, visas would have a four-year cap, and students could apply for an extension if needed.
The department said the new rules were aimed at cracking down on “immigration fraud.”
Last month, leaders in higher education filed a lawsuit in Boston arguing that the new policy was based on an arbitrary timeline and would be detrimental to universities.
In his ruling Monday, Judge F. Dennis Saylor called the government’s rationale for the rule change “exceptionally weak.”
Saylor said the current system has led to “groundbreaking research in science, medicine, and technology, substantial economic growth.” If implemented, he said the visa restrictions would cause damage to both to the economy and higher education institutions that “is likely to be catastrophic.”
“Immigrants to the United States who attended American universities have been named as inventors on a disproportionate number of patents and have been awarded a disproportionate number of Nobel Prizes,” he wrote.
DHS issued a statement saying “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? 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,” the statement said.
The changes are the latest effort from the Trump administration to limit international student enrollment at American universities, of which the impact would be acutely felt in the Boston area.
Saylor noted that major research institutions often enrolled large percentages of international students, especially in graduate programs, and cited percentages of international graduate students at Boston-area universities: 28 percent of students at Boston University; 38 percent of students in Harvard’s Graduate School of Arts; more than 40 percent at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and just over 56 percent at Northeastern University.
In its lawsuit, higher education leaders said the change would decimate doctoral studies in particular, they said, as PhD programs take over five years to complete on average, according to the National Science Foundation.
The plaintiffs, including the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration and the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts, asked for a judge to both overturn the change but also grant immediate relief ahead of the September deadline.
Saylor, who held a hearing on the request earlier this month, on Monday granted a preliminary injunction to postpone the rule change from taking effect.
The next court hearing is set for Oct 2.
The Presidents’ Alliance said in a statement the decision “recognizes the serious and irreparable harm this rule would cause to international students and scholars, higher education institutions, and communities across the country, as well as to the US economy, research and innovation.”
In response to the lawsuit, Brett Shumate, assistant attorney general for the Department of Justice, wrote the current system was archaic and needed to be overhauled to “safeguard national security,” in a 57-page filing.
Saylor acknowledged that the current system is “not without its problems.” But rather than make improvements, the government instead looked to “substantially restrict the overall number of foreign students, researchers, professors, and journalists in the United States.”
The rule change would require visa recipients to apply for an extension if needed, and give government officials the power to curtail the research of international students for no reason, Saylor said, without the ability to appeal decisions.
Not only would that inject a “high degree of uncertainty,” into the possibility of completing longer degree programs, but it would also offer political will to government employees.
“Moreover, it is not difficult to imagine how that system might be abused to punish those whose viewpoints or research are disfavored by the officials making the decision — or, indeed, punish disfavored institutions,” Saylor said.
Nearly 22,000 online public comments were submitted in response to the proposed rule, including letters from BU and MIT. Saylor noted the majority of comments “expressed strong opposition,” and that the government dismissed these opinions as “speculative.”
Maria Zuber, the presidential adviser for science and technology policy at MIT, wrote on behalf of the university that changes to the current visa policy will “diminish American leadership in science and technology.”
But even ahead of the proposed changes taking effect, international student enrollment is already declining at US universities.
The Common App, an admissions application platform for over 1,000 institutions, reported a 10 percent drop in international applications in the most recent admissions cycle. And applications for doctoral programs fell by 21 percent, according to a report from NAFSA: Association of International Educators, a plaintiff in the lawsuit.
For Massachusetts, a decline in international enrollment comes with a sharp economic downturn. The NAFSA report predicted a $284 million decline to the state economy, the third-highest deficit (tied with Michigan) in the country behind California and New York.
But Saylor said it was not his job to block a rule change that could bring “substantial and long-term damage upon the United States and its educational institutions.”
Instead, the role of the judicial system, he wrote, is to ensure that the government followed the law when imposing the changes.
In this case, Saylor said the government tried to “sidestep” a meaningful review of proper procedures, hiding behind claims of “national security and border protection.”
Michaela Towfighi can be reached at michaela.towfighi@globe.com. Follow her on X @michaelatowfghi.