Status as of October 7, 2026. Four higher-education organizations sued DHS, ICE and DOJ on October 5 over a new interpretation of Curricular Practical Training for F-1 students. They have asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts for preliminary relief. No injunction has been issued as of this update.
The lawsuit challenges two Student and Exchange Visitor Program broadcast messages issued on August 12 and August 24, 2026. The plaintiffs say those messages abruptly narrowed a federal interpretation of CPT that institutions and international students had relied on for decades.
What CPT is
Curricular Practical Training allows eligible F-1 students to participate in certain internships, cooperative education and other practical training that is connected to an established curriculum and directly related to the student's field of study.
CPT differs from Optional Practical Training. CPT is authorized through the school's designated school official and is tied to the curriculum; OPT generally requires a USCIS employment-authorization application.
What the plaintiffs say ICE changed
According to the university associations, the August SEVP messages interpret CPT as available only when the practical experience is mandatory for every student in the degree program.
Under that interpretation, an internship or practicum may fail to qualify even when the student earns academic credit if the experience is elective rather than required for every student to graduate.
The plaintiffs contend that the government had accepted a broader interpretation for more than 35 years and that the new approach was introduced without the notice-and-comment process required for a substantive regulatory change.
Who brought the case
The plaintiffs are the Association of American Universities, the Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, NAFSA: Association of International Educators, and the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts.
They allege that the August actions are arbitrary and capricious, impermissibly retroactive, contrary to law and procedurally invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act.
What they want the court to do
The organizations are seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. Their filings ask the court to stop enforcement of the new interpretation while the case is litigated and ultimately set it aside.
As of October 7, the requested preliminary relief has not been granted. Schools and students therefore remain subject to the current government interpretation unless a later court order changes the situation.
Factum Immigration's F-1 Student Visa guide explains the basic differences between CPT and OPT.
Frequently asked questions
Has a court blocked the new CPT interpretation?
No. As of October 7, 2026, the plaintiffs have filed the lawsuit and requested injunctive relief, but no court order has blocked the policy.
What CPT change are the plaintiffs challenging?
The plaintiffs say ICE now treats practical training as CPT only when it is mandatory for all students in the degree program, excluding some elective internships even when they carry academic credit.
Does filing the lawsuit authorize an F-1 student to work without CPT approval?
No. Filing the lawsuit does not create employment authorization or replace a valid CPT authorization from the student's school.
Official sources
Disclaimer: Factum Immigration provides general information, not legal advice. For guidance on an individual case, consult a licensed immigration attorney.