Universities Sue Over SEVP’s New CPT Restrictions

Four higher-education groups sued the federal government over new CPT restrictions on October 5, 2026, arguing that immigration officials unlawfully narrowed access to internships and other practical training for F-1 students. The case could affect how universities authorize credit-bearing experiential learning, but the challenged guidance remains in effect while the court considers the dispute.

Universities Seek Court Intervention

The Association of American Universities, Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts, and NAFSA: Association of International Educators filed the case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The lawsuit names the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Justice Department as defendants. The plaintiffs also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a stay of agency action on October 5, followed by a supporting memorandum on October 6. No court has blocked the guidance as of October 6, 2026.

How SEVP Changed CPT

The dispute centers on SEVP Broadcast Messages issued on August 12 and August 24, 2026. The messages state that Curricular Practical Training must be required for students in the relevant curriculum and that practical training connected only to an optional elective course does not qualify.

Federal regulations describe CPT as training that is directly related to an F-1 student’s major and is an integral part of an established curriculum. A designated school official authorizes CPT for a specific employer and period by updating the student’s SEVIS record and issuing an endorsed Form I-20.

The plaintiffs contend that the government previously allowed two CPT pathways: training taken for academic credit, including elective courses, and non-credit training required to complete a degree. They allege that the August messages improperly extended the mandatory-training standard to elective, credit-bearing opportunities without notice-and-comment rulemaking.

What Students Should Know

The lawsuit does not currently restore eligibility for elective internships. Schools and designated school officials must continue applying SEVP’s existing position unless the agency withdraws the messages or the court grants relief.

For international students, that means an internship’s connection to a major or its availability for academic credit may not be enough under the new interpretation. Students considering programs built around early practical training should ask the school whether the experience is required throughout the curriculum and how its designated school officials are applying the August guidance.

Students must receive CPT authorization before beginning employment. Starting an internship without a properly endorsed Form I-20 can create immigration-status risks, regardless of whether the position is paid or unpaid. Employers should also confirm that the authorization identifies the correct employer, work location, and employment dates.

What Comes Next

The plaintiffs are asking the court to pause enforcement of the broadcast messages and ultimately set them aside. The government will have an opportunity to respond, and the court has not yet decided whether the new interpretation violates the Administrative Procedure Act. Until a ruling is issued, students should rely on written guidance from their school’s international student office rather than assuming the lawsuit has changed CPT eligibility.

Sources

• A Case to Watch: Universities Challenge SEVP’s New Restrictions on Curricular Practical Training — Reddy Neumann Brown PC (October 6, 2026)
• AAU, Other Educational Organizations File Lawsuit Challenging Sudden Change of Curricular Practical Training Policy — Association of American Universities (October 5, 2026)
• Complaint, Association of American Universities v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security — U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (October 5, 2026)