No Ruling Yet in CPT Lawsuit: DHS Says August Guidance Merely Clarifies Existing Rules and Schools May Keep Approving Training
A federal judge in Boston has not yet ruled after hearing arguments in the lawsuit over Curricular Practical Training (CPT) for international students. In a brief filed before the hearing, the Department of Homeland Security said the two August messages from the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) "merely clarify" existing requirements and are not a new rule — and that schools "can continue to authorize CPT."
The case, *Association of American Universities v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security*, No. 1:26-cv-14520 (D. Mass.), was filed on October 5 by the Association of American Universities, NAFSA: Association of International Educators, the Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, and the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts. It is before Judge Julia E. Kobick. The suit targets Broadcast Messages 2608-01 (August 12) and 2608-02 (August 24), which told designated school officials that CPT is available only when the training is required of every student in the program. Under that reading, an elective internship taken for academic credit no longer qualifies, even though the regulation, 8 C.F.R. 214.2(f)(10)(i), has not changed. The complaint says the messages warned that noncompliant authorizations could cost a school its SEVP certification.
The four groups want the broadcasts stayed under 5 U.S.C. 705, arguing they reverse decades of practice, apply retroactively, and are a new rule issued without notice and comment. In its opposition brief filed October 28, the Department of Homeland Security led with standing: both broadcasts carry a disclaimer that the message is not "itself a rule or a final action by SEVP," and guidance that does not alter the legal regime cannot be challenged under the Administrative Procedure Act. On the merits, the department said the messages restate what "integral part of an established curriculum" already required and are a clarification, not a change in position.
But there is a gap between what the government says in court and what schools are doing on campus. The complaint says more than a dozen member universities have already narrowed CPT approvals because officials read the certification warning as binding. The department's answer is that those were the schools' own choices. If the court accepts that framing, the effect could cut both ways: the government would avoid review, but a finding that the broadcasts bind no one would give school officials room to resume approving elective CPT until the department acts through rulemaking or enforcement.
The litigation bears directly on internship plans for large numbers of international students. ICE's 2024 SEVIS by the Numbers report counted 130,586 F-1 and M-1 students with CPT authorizations in calendar year 2024, against 1,582,808 active student records, a little over 8 percent. Spring and summer placements are being arranged now, and many schools have stopped approving elective, for-credit internships until they know whether the government's new reading will hold. Pre-completion Optional Practical Training is the usual fallback, but it requires an employment authorization document from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and draws down the 12 months available after graduation — and that program faces its own pressure from the department's proposal to charge schools $70,000 for a first OPT authorization.
This case is distinct from a separate lawsuit over the fixed-period admission rule, No. 1:26-cv-13799, which challenges the department's final rule replacing the "duration of status" framework. That rule was preliminarily blocked nationwide on September 14. The CPT guidance is independent of that rule and remains in effect.
Judge Kobick's ruling on preliminary relief comes next. A stay would restore the pre-August practice nationwide while the case proceeds, and the losing side could seek review in the First Circuit. A ruling for the government on finality or standing would leave the broadcasts in place but would not settle whether their reading of the regulation is correct — a question that would likely return the first time SEVP acts against a school or a student.
Source: Immigration Analytics
Published by GSM · USA (original Chinese edition)
Photo: 图：美国国土安全部总部大楼（GSM 固定图库）。U.S. Department of Homeland Security headquarters. (GSM asset library)
