As of November 8, 2026, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s new interpretation of Curricular Practical Training (CPT) remains in effect. On November 6, a federal judge in Boston heard universities’ request to pause the policy and took the motion under advisement. No ruling has issued.
The case could affect internship and practicum plans for F-1 international students, the schools that authorize their work, and employers that host them. But the complaint’s claims are allegations, not court findings. Students and schools should not assume that the court will grant relief.
What changed in the CPT guidance?
CPT allows eligible F-1 students to engage in practical training, such as internships and cooperative education, when the training is directly related to the student’s major and is an integral part of an established curriculum. The governing regulation is 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f)(10)(i).
For decades, the government interpreted the regulation to allow two routes: practical training taken for academic credit, including elective credit, or non-credit training that is mandatory for the degree. In August 2026, ICE’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) issued two messages to schools that adopt a narrower interpretation:
- August 12, Broadcast Message 2608-01: SEVP said DSOs should authorize CPT only if the training is required for all students pursuing the degree and the degree could not be attained without it. Read the August 12 message.
- August 24, Broadcast Message 2608-02: SEVP said all students in the established curriculum must participate in practical training and that CPT cannot be offered as part of an elective course. The message defines “integral” as “essential to completeness.” Read the August 24 message.
The messages were styled as reminders of existing requirements, not as changes in policy. They also warn of consequences that may include withdrawal of a school’s SEVP certification and penalties for DSOs who certify Form I-20 information under penalty of perjury. The complaint argues that this puts school officials at risk for conduct that complied with the government’s prior interpretation.
What are the universities challenging?
On October 5, 2026, the Association of American Universities, the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts, and NAFSA: Association of International Educators filed suit against DHS, ICE, DOJ, and federal officials in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The case is No. 26-cv-14520.
The plaintiffs’ complaint raises four claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA):
- Arbitrary and capricious action: The plaintiffs allege that DHS reversed a longstanding interpretation without adequate explanation or consideration of reliance interests, citing standards including Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm, Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, and FCC v. Fox Television Stations.
- Impermissible retroactivity: The plaintiffs allege that the policy threatens consequences for CPT approvals made before the August messages.
- Action contrary to law: The plaintiffs argue the messages conflict with the binding regulation and that an agency cannot override its own regulation through informal guidance. They cite the Accardi doctrine.
- Procedural invalidity: The plaintiffs contend the messages impose a new legislative rule without the notice-and-comment process required by 5 U.S.C. § 553.
The complaint points to the regulatory history, including the 1991 rulemaking, and prior agency materials that it says recognized elective, for-credit internships as qualifying CPT. These arguments remain disputed. The court has not decided whether the guidance is unlawful.
What is the status of the lawsuit?
Judge Julia E. Kobick heard the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction or stay on November 6 and took it under advisement. As of November 8, no decision has been issued, so the August messages’ interpretation remains in effect for now. The hearing concerned interim relief; it was not a final ruling on the merits.
The plaintiffs allege that schools have paused or narrowed CPT authorizations and that students have lost internships secured months earlier. The complaint also cites more than 130,000 F-1 students authorized for CPT in 2024, based on DHS’s SEVIS by the Numbers report. It alleges that DHS personnel have begun asking about students’ prior CPT experiences in later immigration-benefit applications. Those claims have not been adjudicated. Law360 reported on the November 6 hearing in its article, “Mass. Judge Probes Impact Of DHS Student Internship Rules”.
Why pre-completion OPT may not replace CPT
Pre-completion Optional Practical Training (OPT) is a separate form of work authorization. It requires a USCIS employment authorization document (EAD) through Form I-765. According to the complaint’s cited USCIS data, as of September 28, 2026, only 80% of relevant applications were completed within five months. Students must plan for the application process well in advance; the complaint states that they must apply at least 90 days before the requested start date.
Pre-completion OPT is also limited to 20 hours per week while school is in session. Time used before graduation counts against the student’s 12-month post-completion OPT allocation. For these reasons, OPT may not provide a timely or equivalent alternative to a curriculum-based internship.
Practical steps for students, schools, and employers
F-1 students
Before planning an internship, practicum, or other practical training, contact your designated school official (DSO). Under the current SEVP messages, CPT can be authorized only if it satisfies the new mandatory-for-all-students standard.
Do not begin work until your DSO has authorized CPT and issued an updated Form I-20 with the CPT endorsement. If you previously used elective, for-credit CPT, seek legal advice before filing a new immigration application. The plaintiffs allege that DHS has asked about prior CPT in later benefit applications; that allegation does not establish that every prior authorization will be challenged.
Use only legitimate, school-approved training arrangements. Do not participate in schemes that misrepresent employment or academic requirements; fraudulent CPT arrangements were not authorized under the longstanding rules either.
Universities and DSOs
Schools should document their curriculum analysis, including whether the practical training is required of all students in the relevant degree program. Keep records of CPT authorizations made before August 2026, and ensure SEVIS records and Forms I-20 are consistent with the school’s documentation.
A school’s CPT decisions can also affect its ability to maintain SEVP certification. Institutions should review the SEVP messages and their current procedures with appropriate legal and compliance advisers.
Employers hosting international-student interns
Before allowing an F-1 student to begin work, verify the student’s CPT authorization and dates on the Form I-20. The authorization identifies the employer, work location, and start and end dates. Internship programs built around elective, for-credit placements may need backup plans while the policy and lawsuit remain unresolved.
The CPT dispute does not itself change eligibility for later H-1B or other work visas. However, if students lose internship opportunities, employers may see a smaller practical-experience pipeline. Employers do not acquire new Form I-9 or E-Verify duties because of this litigation. Ordinary employment-verification rules continue to apply.
What should readers watch next?
The next key development is Judge Kobick’s decision on the preliminary injunction or stay motion. Schools and employers should also monitor any expedited schedule, the planning window for the next semester, and whether DHS issues clarifying guidance. Until there is a court order or revised agency guidance, do not assume the current interpretation has been paused.
Immigration guidance for students and employers
Blasingame Law LLC advises employers and individuals on business immigration, work authorization, and workforce compliance. With more than 30 years of experience in corporate and private practice, the firm provides tailored guidance for organizations managing immigration-related employment issues.
Explore Blasingame Law LLC’s services or contact the firm to discuss a specific situation with an immigration lawyer or business immigration attorney.
This article provides general legal information and is not legal advice. It does not create an attorney-client relationship. Immigration outcomes depend on individual facts and current law. Consult qualified legal counsel about your circumstances.
