How efforts to restrict foreign students during the Trump administration fell apart
The administration changed its stance following directives from numerous judges, who mandated the reinstatement of legal records for student visa holders.
TroibNews 
It took over 100 lawsuits and 50 restraining orders from numerous federal judges. However, after 20 days of courtroom defeats, the Trump administration relented, altering a decision that jeopardized the legal standing of thousands of foreign students in the U.S.
The administration's unexpected reversal, communicated by a Justice Department lawyer in court on Friday, implicitly recognized the conclusions made by judges across two dozen states since early April: the termination of university students’ immigration records from a federal database—which appeared to threaten their legal ability to stay in the country—was likely unlawful. The execution of this policy was so poorly handled that judges felt compelled to act.
“It’s just kind of sinking in for all those students that they’re now going to be OK,” stated Brian Green, an attorney representing over 50 students impacted by the terminations. “This was not decision-making. This was injustice.”
This sudden change constituted yet another setback for the administration’s aggressive measures against foreign students and President Donald Trump’s broader immigration initiatives, which have been fraught with legal challenges. Courts have blocked or compelled the administration to reverse key policies regarding the deportation of alleged gang members, refugee admissions, legal status for many Venezuelans, and various expedited immigration removals. These issues have unfolded at multiple levels of the judiciary and have often focused on the administration's alleged attempts to bypass due process protections enshrined in the Constitution.
The widespread termination of students’ immigration records is the latest example in this ongoing pattern of challenges.
In early April, colleges and universities began informing certain foreign students, who were in the U.S. on F-1 visas, that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials had “terminated” their student status—thereby barring them from continuing their studies. Many of these students had only minor encounters with the law in recent years that did not meet the legal threshold for revoking a foreign student’s authorization to reside in the U.S.
One Connecticut student reported being targeted after a disagreement with an airline employee about a $100 fee for a carry-on bag. A student from Alaska claimed his record was erased due to an accusation of boarding a bus that was out of service. Another faced police citation for driving too slowly. Some students expressed confusion about why they were affected at all.
When the Trump administration agreed to reverse the policy on Friday, it acknowledged that the terminations stemmed from linking student immigration records to a national FBI database that records encounters with law enforcement, regardless of their severity.
The outcomes were unexpected and deeply unsettling for the students. Those with past DUIs, misdemeanor gambling charges, traffic violations, and other minor infringements found their immigration status revoked. Some were warned by their schools that they faced imminent deportation. As lawsuits multiplied, the Justice Department heightened their anxiety, with government lawyers unable to confirm whether these students were legally in the country.
Judges reacted with alarm at the lack of clarity, mandating the administration in several cases to rectify the harm and reinstate the students’ records in the immigration database, known as SEVIS. On Friday, the administration announced it would restore the canceled records and would no longer terminate students’ files based solely on data from the FBI’s criminal record system.
Students’ lawyers believe the terminations may have arisen from an automated process, possibly influenced by AI. They noted that ICE is currently working to manually reinstate the records of these students, even though the mass terminations occurred in early April. While this could have been clarified further in court, the administration’s reversal may preempt further investigation.
A surge of lawsuits and judicial frustration have characterized these proceedings. Since April 5, federal courts nationwide have been bombarded with over 100 lawsuits related to these terminations. A review of the cases revealed that prior to the administration's reversal on Friday, judges had issued at least 54 restraining orders, growing increasingly frustrated with the administration’s failure to clarify the rationale and consequences of its actions.
The core issue revolves around a decision by ICE to label the records of thousands of international students in a federal database, which verifies their eligibility to study in the U.S., as “terminated.” Students whose authorizations were removed from this database claimed their institutions barred them from continuing their education and warned them of potential deportation. Throughout numerous legal proceedings, the Trump administration consistently refused to clarify whether these students remained legally in the country, exacerbating their fears of detention and deportation.
“You're standing here today on behalf of the United States and you're telling me that you do not know whether this plaintiff is legally in the United States? How is she supposed to know the answer to that question if you don't?” U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan asked during a hearing in Washington on Monday.
The actions of ICE officials differ from the administration's efforts to target foreign student activists, as seen in the case of Columbia’s Mahmoud Khalil, who faced potential deportation based on actions deemed contrary to U.S. policy interests by Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
This recent wave of cases focuses on students enrolled in U.S. colleges and universities, many in specialized fields such as engineering, mathematics, or science, and some on the brink of graduation. These students are in the U.S. under a program established by the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act known as the F-1 system. This initiative has historically aimed to attract and nurture highly skilled foreign students, many of whom ultimately choose to stay in the U.S.
Prior to Friday's reversal, the Trump administration claimed the students were overstating their plight and reacting to what it described as administrative changes largely confined to an internal ICE database. However, when pressed, Justice Department lawyers admitted they lacked knowledge—due to ICE’s silence—regarding whether these students could lawfully remain in the U.S.
“I think the government has been and is playing games,” Sooknanan remarked during a hearing just before issuing a restraining order in one of the student cases.
Judges from both sides of the political spectrum, including at least one appointed by Trump, have largely expressed sympathy for the students’ situations. One judge described the circumstances as "Kafkaesque," while another claimed the administration had provided “literally nothing” to validate its justification for stripping these students of their legal standing. A different judge briefly threatened to hold the Justice Department in contempt until ICE confirmed the restoration of a student’s status.
Additional judges were astonished that the Justice Department could not provide straightforward answers regarding the deportation risks for students impacted by the status changes.
“This is not a man trying to evade this country's laws. He’s trying to comply with them,” U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan told a Justice Department lawyer in Washington on Wednesday. “You’re putting him in an impossible situation.”
The rejections also extend beyond liberal strongholds like Washington and California. Judges have issued full or partial restraining orders in 23 states, including Arizona, Indiana, Iowa, Montana, Ohio, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Georgia, where a judge protected 133 affected students in one lawsuit.
The F-1 immigration system allows foreign nationals to enroll in American universities. Initially, prospective students apply to their chosen institutions, which then send immigration forms to the applicants for their local U.S. consulates. Once approved by the State Department, these students are granted F-1 visas, which they present to Customs and Border Protection upon entry into the U.S.
In order to maintain their legal status in the country, F-1 visa holders must adhere to several requirements: they must maintain a full-time course load at their institutions, refrain from unauthorized employment, and avoid violent felonies.
After graduation, some may opt to extend their legal status through school-sanctioned research and employment or transition to permanent residency via a U.S. employer. Others may choose to return to their home countries.
To monitor students admitted under the F-1 system, the Department of Homeland Security operates a database known as the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), established by Congress following the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and expanded by the Patriot Act after 9/11.
The administration has downplayed the significance of ICE's actions, contending that they involve minor bookkeeping adjustments that do not immediately impact students’ immigration status. Justice Department representatives have claimed that modifications to an internal database are beyond the scope of such extensive legal challenges and that students could only seek recourse under the Privacy Act.
This situation presents a catch-22, as the Privacy Act is only applicable to U.S. citizens, green card holders, and citizens of the UK and EU. Consequently, most students affected by the current terminations lack legal options for redress.
DOJ lawyers have also suggested that students could file for reinstatement of their SEVIS records, but immigration attorneys warn that this entails admitting their status was lawfully revoked. Furthermore, the process plainly states: “If the Service does not reinstate the student, the student may not appeal that decision.”
Attorneys for the students argue that the administration’s dismissal of the SEVIS terminations fails to account for the real-life consequences: students are being barred from classes, face the prospect of lost job opportunities, and are being warned about accumulating "unlawful presence" in the United States—exposing them to potential deportation and complicating future immigration status applications.
Elika Shams, an Iranian citizen pursuing a biomedical engineering PhD at the University of Connecticut, detailed her predicament in a lawsuit. “On December 31, 2024, Elika was rushing to meet a connecting flight when Frontier Airlines staff refused to let her board unless she paid $100 for a carry-on bag. When she questioned this, Frontier staff shut the gateway door. Elika attempted to open the door to explain she would pay, resulting in a warning from TSA."
Shams reported being forced to cease her part-time campus job after the SEVIS termination, and UConn informed her on April 15 that she could no longer attend classes or conduct research, jeopardizing her immigration status, according to her lawsuit.
Jean Kashikov, a native of Kazakhstan, graduated from the University of Alaska Anchorage with degrees in math and piloting in December. While working as a flight instructor under the “Optional Practical Training” program, he received an email on April 10 indicating, “I am terribly sorry to inform you that this morning, your record was marked as ‘terminated’ … indicating that the U.S. government believes you have violated your status.” The email added that all employment authorization would conclude immediately upon losing valid status and warned him to stop any work right away.
Kashikov did not receive a specific reason for the termination, but a lawsuit suggests it might have been linked to a previous incident in Arizona, where he was charged with disorderly conduct and criminal trespass; the charges were later dismissed.
Notably, some judges have sided with the administration in the initial litigation rounds. A few rejected restraining orders on procedural grounds, asserting the administration required additional time to respond to the students' complaints. Only one judge, U.S. District Judge Stephen Murphy, appointed by George W. Bush, provided a detailed ruling supporting the administration’s stance, asserting the student plaintiffs did not demonstrate they would be permanently harmed by the SEVIS terminations. The Justice Department has quickly disseminated his opinion to courts nationwide.
Judge Murphy suggested that the ambiguity surrounding students’ deportability actually favored the administration. He commented that the students “failed to fully explain” whether they could legally remain in the U.S. despite the SEVIS termination and whether they were pursuing reinstatement. He also noted it was possible that universities could allow students to keep attending classes, despite many students stating their institutions informed them they were no longer eligible.
“To be sure, some Plaintiffs have future plans that might be impeded,” Murphy noted. “But those harms are sufficiently distant to counsel against immediate relief.”
In most cases, when pressed by judges, Justice Department lawyers have struggled to answer whether a student with a terminated SEVIS record is legally allowed to remain in the country and continue their education—even when they are nearing graduation.
Recently, the Justice Department lawyer handling many of the F-1 student cases informed several judges that he had been seeking clarification from ICE but had received no response.
“He’s either here legally or he’s not here legally,” exclaimed U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes during a Washington hearing last week. “There is a yes or no answer here. … This is not Schrodinger’s visa; either he’s here legally or he’s not here legally.”
Olivia Brown for TROIB News
The administration's unexpected reversal, communicated by a Justice Department lawyer in court on Friday, implicitly recognized the conclusions made by judges across two dozen states since early April: the termination of university students’ immigration records from a federal database—which appeared to threaten their legal ability to stay in the country—was likely unlawful. The execution of this policy was so poorly handled that judges felt compelled to act.
“It’s just kind of sinking in for all those students that they’re now going to be OK,” stated Brian Green, an attorney representing over 50 students impacted by the terminations. “This was not decision-making. This was injustice.”
This sudden change constituted yet another setback for the administration’s aggressive measures against foreign students and President Donald Trump’s broader immigration initiatives, which have been fraught with legal challenges. Courts have blocked or compelled the administration to reverse key policies regarding the deportation of alleged gang members, refugee admissions, legal status for many Venezuelans, and various expedited immigration removals. These issues have unfolded at multiple levels of the judiciary and have often focused on the administration's alleged attempts to bypass due process protections enshrined in the Constitution.
The widespread termination of students’ immigration records is the latest example in this ongoing pattern of challenges.
In early April, colleges and universities began informing certain foreign students, who were in the U.S. on F-1 visas, that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials had “terminated” their student status—thereby barring them from continuing their studies. Many of these students had only minor encounters with the law in recent years that did not meet the legal threshold for revoking a foreign student’s authorization to reside in the U.S.
One Connecticut student reported being targeted after a disagreement with an airline employee about a $100 fee for a carry-on bag. A student from Alaska claimed his record was erased due to an accusation of boarding a bus that was out of service. Another faced police citation for driving too slowly. Some students expressed confusion about why they were affected at all.
When the Trump administration agreed to reverse the policy on Friday, it acknowledged that the terminations stemmed from linking student immigration records to a national FBI database that records encounters with law enforcement, regardless of their severity.
The outcomes were unexpected and deeply unsettling for the students. Those with past DUIs, misdemeanor gambling charges, traffic violations, and other minor infringements found their immigration status revoked. Some were warned by their schools that they faced imminent deportation. As lawsuits multiplied, the Justice Department heightened their anxiety, with government lawyers unable to confirm whether these students were legally in the country.
Judges reacted with alarm at the lack of clarity, mandating the administration in several cases to rectify the harm and reinstate the students’ records in the immigration database, known as SEVIS. On Friday, the administration announced it would restore the canceled records and would no longer terminate students’ files based solely on data from the FBI’s criminal record system.
Students’ lawyers believe the terminations may have arisen from an automated process, possibly influenced by AI. They noted that ICE is currently working to manually reinstate the records of these students, even though the mass terminations occurred in early April. While this could have been clarified further in court, the administration’s reversal may preempt further investigation.
A surge of lawsuits and judicial frustration have characterized these proceedings. Since April 5, federal courts nationwide have been bombarded with over 100 lawsuits related to these terminations. A review of the cases revealed that prior to the administration's reversal on Friday, judges had issued at least 54 restraining orders, growing increasingly frustrated with the administration’s failure to clarify the rationale and consequences of its actions.
The core issue revolves around a decision by ICE to label the records of thousands of international students in a federal database, which verifies their eligibility to study in the U.S., as “terminated.” Students whose authorizations were removed from this database claimed their institutions barred them from continuing their education and warned them of potential deportation. Throughout numerous legal proceedings, the Trump administration consistently refused to clarify whether these students remained legally in the country, exacerbating their fears of detention and deportation.
“You're standing here today on behalf of the United States and you're telling me that you do not know whether this plaintiff is legally in the United States? How is she supposed to know the answer to that question if you don't?” U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan asked during a hearing in Washington on Monday.
The actions of ICE officials differ from the administration's efforts to target foreign student activists, as seen in the case of Columbia’s Mahmoud Khalil, who faced potential deportation based on actions deemed contrary to U.S. policy interests by Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
This recent wave of cases focuses on students enrolled in U.S. colleges and universities, many in specialized fields such as engineering, mathematics, or science, and some on the brink of graduation. These students are in the U.S. under a program established by the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act known as the F-1 system. This initiative has historically aimed to attract and nurture highly skilled foreign students, many of whom ultimately choose to stay in the U.S.
Prior to Friday's reversal, the Trump administration claimed the students were overstating their plight and reacting to what it described as administrative changes largely confined to an internal ICE database. However, when pressed, Justice Department lawyers admitted they lacked knowledge—due to ICE’s silence—regarding whether these students could lawfully remain in the U.S.
“I think the government has been and is playing games,” Sooknanan remarked during a hearing just before issuing a restraining order in one of the student cases.
Judges from both sides of the political spectrum, including at least one appointed by Trump, have largely expressed sympathy for the students’ situations. One judge described the circumstances as "Kafkaesque," while another claimed the administration had provided “literally nothing” to validate its justification for stripping these students of their legal standing. A different judge briefly threatened to hold the Justice Department in contempt until ICE confirmed the restoration of a student’s status.
Additional judges were astonished that the Justice Department could not provide straightforward answers regarding the deportation risks for students impacted by the status changes.
“This is not a man trying to evade this country's laws. He’s trying to comply with them,” U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan told a Justice Department lawyer in Washington on Wednesday. “You’re putting him in an impossible situation.”
The rejections also extend beyond liberal strongholds like Washington and California. Judges have issued full or partial restraining orders in 23 states, including Arizona, Indiana, Iowa, Montana, Ohio, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Georgia, where a judge protected 133 affected students in one lawsuit.
The F-1 immigration system allows foreign nationals to enroll in American universities. Initially, prospective students apply to their chosen institutions, which then send immigration forms to the applicants for their local U.S. consulates. Once approved by the State Department, these students are granted F-1 visas, which they present to Customs and Border Protection upon entry into the U.S.
In order to maintain their legal status in the country, F-1 visa holders must adhere to several requirements: they must maintain a full-time course load at their institutions, refrain from unauthorized employment, and avoid violent felonies.
After graduation, some may opt to extend their legal status through school-sanctioned research and employment or transition to permanent residency via a U.S. employer. Others may choose to return to their home countries.
To monitor students admitted under the F-1 system, the Department of Homeland Security operates a database known as the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), established by Congress following the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and expanded by the Patriot Act after 9/11.
The administration has downplayed the significance of ICE's actions, contending that they involve minor bookkeeping adjustments that do not immediately impact students’ immigration status. Justice Department representatives have claimed that modifications to an internal database are beyond the scope of such extensive legal challenges and that students could only seek recourse under the Privacy Act.
This situation presents a catch-22, as the Privacy Act is only applicable to U.S. citizens, green card holders, and citizens of the UK and EU. Consequently, most students affected by the current terminations lack legal options for redress.
DOJ lawyers have also suggested that students could file for reinstatement of their SEVIS records, but immigration attorneys warn that this entails admitting their status was lawfully revoked. Furthermore, the process plainly states: “If the Service does not reinstate the student, the student may not appeal that decision.”
Attorneys for the students argue that the administration’s dismissal of the SEVIS terminations fails to account for the real-life consequences: students are being barred from classes, face the prospect of lost job opportunities, and are being warned about accumulating "unlawful presence" in the United States—exposing them to potential deportation and complicating future immigration status applications.
Elika Shams, an Iranian citizen pursuing a biomedical engineering PhD at the University of Connecticut, detailed her predicament in a lawsuit. “On December 31, 2024, Elika was rushing to meet a connecting flight when Frontier Airlines staff refused to let her board unless she paid $100 for a carry-on bag. When she questioned this, Frontier staff shut the gateway door. Elika attempted to open the door to explain she would pay, resulting in a warning from TSA."
Shams reported being forced to cease her part-time campus job after the SEVIS termination, and UConn informed her on April 15 that she could no longer attend classes or conduct research, jeopardizing her immigration status, according to her lawsuit.
Jean Kashikov, a native of Kazakhstan, graduated from the University of Alaska Anchorage with degrees in math and piloting in December. While working as a flight instructor under the “Optional Practical Training” program, he received an email on April 10 indicating, “I am terribly sorry to inform you that this morning, your record was marked as ‘terminated’ … indicating that the U.S. government believes you have violated your status.” The email added that all employment authorization would conclude immediately upon losing valid status and warned him to stop any work right away.
Kashikov did not receive a specific reason for the termination, but a lawsuit suggests it might have been linked to a previous incident in Arizona, where he was charged with disorderly conduct and criminal trespass; the charges were later dismissed.
Notably, some judges have sided with the administration in the initial litigation rounds. A few rejected restraining orders on procedural grounds, asserting the administration required additional time to respond to the students' complaints. Only one judge, U.S. District Judge Stephen Murphy, appointed by George W. Bush, provided a detailed ruling supporting the administration’s stance, asserting the student plaintiffs did not demonstrate they would be permanently harmed by the SEVIS terminations. The Justice Department has quickly disseminated his opinion to courts nationwide.
Judge Murphy suggested that the ambiguity surrounding students’ deportability actually favored the administration. He commented that the students “failed to fully explain” whether they could legally remain in the U.S. despite the SEVIS termination and whether they were pursuing reinstatement. He also noted it was possible that universities could allow students to keep attending classes, despite many students stating their institutions informed them they were no longer eligible.
“To be sure, some Plaintiffs have future plans that might be impeded,” Murphy noted. “But those harms are sufficiently distant to counsel against immediate relief.”
In most cases, when pressed by judges, Justice Department lawyers have struggled to answer whether a student with a terminated SEVIS record is legally allowed to remain in the country and continue their education—even when they are nearing graduation.
Recently, the Justice Department lawyer handling many of the F-1 student cases informed several judges that he had been seeking clarification from ICE but had received no response.
“He’s either here legally or he’s not here legally,” exclaimed U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes during a Washington hearing last week. “There is a yes or no answer here. … This is not Schrodinger’s visa; either he’s here legally or he’s not here legally.”
Olivia Brown for TROIB News
