Trump Student Visa Revocation Challenge Survives Dismissal (1)

A higher education group’s lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s mass revocation of international student visas can go forward, a federal judge in Boston ruled.

Judge Patti Saris of the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts mostly denied the government’s motion to dismiss the complaint, rejecting arguments that plaintiffs lacked standing and the lawsuit was moot.

Saris also said the administration’s actions could be reviewed by courts—a key point of contention with Justice Department lawyers arguing that the revocations aren’t subject to judicial scrutiny.

The Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration argued that the State Department’s blanket decision to rescind student visas was arbitrary and capricious. The group also claimed the subsequent termination of students’ status by the Department of Homeland Security violated the Administrative Procedure Act.

As part of a “Student Criminal Alien Initiative,” the State and Homeland Security departments terminated the F-1 visas and lawful status of thousands of foreign students who appeared in the National Crime Information Center database—including many who were never even arrested or convicted of a crime.

That initiative was one of several Trump administration efforts that have roiled the F-1 visa program, including the arrest and detention of some foreign scholars over pro-Palestinian activism. DHS has also proposed to limit the duration of status for international students in new regulations.

Scores of lawsuits brought by students who appeared in the NCIC database led DHS to eventually restore records in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System that shows their lawful status in the US. That meant they could continue work and studies in the US but would have to reapply for a new visa if they left the country.

The visa terminations weren’t addressed in most previous litigation because those decisions aren’t viewed as subject to judicial review. But the Presidents’ Alliance argued that the mass revocation of visas without any individualized review of students’ cases had no statutory or regulatory authority.

Saris found that the US Supreme Court in McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, Inc. and Reno v. Catholic Social Services, Inc. backed claims that a judicial review bar applied to individual agency actions, not to practices or policies.

“The same logic applies here,” she wrote. “Plaintiffs’ claim does not contest the revocation of any individual visa; instead, Plaintiffs challenge a group of decisions to revoke visas pursuant to a broad policy of doing so based on NCIC hits.”

Saris also wasn’t swayed by government arguments that the case was moot because of ICE’s reversal of its policy terminating students’ records in the SEVIS system. That shift offered no assurance the agency wouldn’t terminate student records again, she said, and State hasn’t restored the visas that were revoked.

Plaintiffs are represented by Zimmer, Citron & Clarke LLP, National Immigration Project and Green & Spiegel, LLC. Defendants are represented by the Department of Justice.

The case is Presidents’ All. on Higher Educ. and Immigration v. Bondi, D. Mass., No. 1:25-cv-11109, order issued 3/20/26.