What’s Happening
On October 5, 2026, higher education organizations filed a lawsuit challenging the government’s new interpretation of the rules for F-1 Curricular Practical Training (CPT) that significantly restricts when F-1 students may participate in CPT. The lawsuit, Association of American Universities v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 1:26-cv-14520, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts and challenges two SEVP Broadcast Messages issued on August 12 and August 24, 2026, which significantly narrowed the agency’s interpretation of when practical training qualifies for CPT. The plaintiffs have also asked the court to block the government from implementing and enforcing the challenged interpretation while the litigation proceeds.
What Changed?
Federal regulations provide that CPT must be directly related to an F-1 student’s major area of study and be an “integral part of an established curriculum.” The lawsuit asserts that, for decades, the federal government interpreted this standard to permit CPT where either (1) the practical training was taken for academic credit toward the student’s degree, or (2) where not taken for academic credit, the training was required for completion of the degree.
SEVP’s August 2026 Broadcast Messages adopt a substantially narrower interpretation. Under the new position, practical training qualifies for CPT only where it is mandatory for every student in the degree program, such that a student could not complete the degree without it. Elective internships and other elective practical training opportunities do not qualify under this interpretation, even where the student receives academic credit.
The August guidance also significantly increased the stakes for schools, warning that CPT authorizations that do not comply with its more narrow interpretation may expose institutions and their employees to administrative or legal consequences, including potential withdrawal of a school’s SEVP certification and penalties associated with providing false information.
What Does the Lawsuit Challenge?
The plaintiffs argue that the August Broadcast Messages represent an abrupt departure from more than 35 years of federal policy and practice regarding CPT. They contend that the government implemented the new interpretation without acknowledging the change or providing a reasoned explanation and without going through notice-and-comment rulemaking.
The lawsuit asserts several claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), including that the Broadcast Messages are arbitrary and capricious, impermissibly retroactive, contrary to law, and procedurally invalid.
The plaintiffs are asking the court to block the government from implementing or enforcing SEVP’s new interpretation while the litigation proceeds. The requested relief would extend both prospectively and to conduct and CPT approvals that occurred before the Broadcast Messages were issued.
Current Impact
The effects of the new interpretation are already being felt. Some universities have paused or discontinued CPT authorizations following the August guidance. For example, several institutions, including Harvard, MIT, the University of Pennsylvania, and Wellesley College, have paused or halted at least some CPT authorizations.
For employers, this means that F-1 students who previously may have expected to obtain CPT authorization for internships or other practical training may no longer be able to do so under their school’s current interpretation of the guidance. Employers should continue to confirm that an F-1 student has appropriate CPT authorization before employment begins and should be prepared for differing approaches among universities while the litigation remains pending.
Proactive planning is key and alternatives, such as pre-completion OPT, may need to be considered to allow certain internships to proceed.
What Happens Next?
If the court blocks the new guidance from going into effect, this could prevent the government from enforcing the August Broadcast Messages while the court considers the underlying legal challenge.
Until the court grants relief or SEVP otherwise revises its position, however, F-1 students, universities, and employers should not assume that the lawsuit has restored the prior CPT framework. D&S will continue to monitor the litigation, including the request for preliminary relief, and will provide updates regarding significant developments.
This alert is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult D&S immigration counsel regarding your specific circumstances. D&S Senior Associate Paulina Baginska assisted with the preparation of this alert.