Judge blocks Trump administration plans to limit visa length for grad students, postdocs

A federal judge on Monday issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration from changing a long-standing policy that allows foreign students and scholars to stay in the U.S. for the duration of their training. The ruling halts DHS plans to place a four-year cap on the kinds of visas used by graduate students and postdoctoral researchers while a judge hears full arguments in a lawsuit over the new policy, which had been set to take effect Tuesday. Experts warn the outcome could have a dramatic impact on the nation's biomedical preeminence because international researchers make up a large share of the U.S. life science workforce.

Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts wrote that the promulgation of the rule clearly failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act. Saylor added that the administration's argument that the new visa policy was needed to safeguard national security was weak and raises legitimate questions as to whether its real purpose is not to safeguard national security and protect borders, but to achieve other undisclosed goals such as asserting greater government control over academic institutions. While Saylor said the plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of success in the case, he declined to issue a summary judgment definitively striking down the DHS rule.

In a Sept. 3 hearing, an attorney for the coalition of academic groups that challenged the visa restrictions, Paul Hughes of McDermott, Will & Schulte, argued the government did not conduct a sufficient analysis of the fallout of the new policy. Without a delay in its implementation or throwing out the change, he said schools would experience irreparable harm. Michael Celone, a Department of Justice lawyer, argued that the government had done its due diligence and that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated tangible harm that would result from the policy; he said students affected by the policy could apply for extensions or easily apply elsewhere, comparing students choosing schools to taking a book out of the library.

Saylor seemed skeptical of the government's reasoning, questioning how the policy would diminish any national security risks posed by international students. He said he was struggling to see any real, rational connection between the national security issues identified, which he described as not even half a dozen incidents over 50 years, and the change. The judge also took issue with the relatively short time the policy was open for public comments, saying he probably could not call it illegal but that it was part of the mix in assessing to what extent the government was taking its duty seriously in weighing costs and benefits.