Visa and immigration policy: Legal opposition to SEVIS record terminations

Lawsuits proliferated immediately

As awareness spread in early April 2025 of mass terminations of international students’ SEVIS records, dozens of lawsuits were filed challenging the move. By late April, many of these cases had resulted in the imposition of temporary restraining orders requiring the reactivation of students’ SEVIS records.¹ On April 25, the Department of Homeland Security elected to reactivate the terminated SEVIS records en masse.²

These lawsuits argued that the terminations were made for improper reasons and that they did not adhere to required procedures. In most cases, there had been no explanation for the termination other than a code entered in SEVIS indicating a reason of “Otherwise Failing to Maintain Status” or, later, “OTHER — Individual identified in criminal records check and/or has had their visa revoked.”³ In some cases, it became clear that the termination was related to violations of the law that did not result in convictions or meet the seriousness threshold of 8 CFR 214.1(g).⁴

Arguments focused on exceeded authority and deficient procedures

Representative legal arguments can be found in a suit filed on April 24 by the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, an association of leaders in higher education, together with five student plaintiffs. The full complaint can be accessed below. In brief, the arguments were:⁵

• The Department of Homeland Security did not adhere to the conditions defined in regulation that dictate when it may terminate a SEVIS record.⁶

• By failing to provide notice of the termination or a “meaningful opportunity to be heard,” the department had violated the “due process” protections guaranteed to all people in the United States through the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution.

• The terminations were “arbitrary and capricious” with respect to the Administrative Procedure Act,⁷ because they constituted an unannounced and unexplained change in longstanding policy and practice. The Presidents’ Alliance complaint argues that agencies “cannot depart from a prior contrary policy sub silentio [without formal notice] or otherwise disregard rules that are already in place. … If a prior rule or practice has engendered significant reliance issues, the agency must then provide a detailed explanation to uphold the significant deviation of the new policy and practice from the prior practice.”

Documents

Cite this resource

AIP Policy Research, “Legal opposition to SEVIS record terminations,” Visa and immigration policy guide, American Institute of Physics, 2026, https://www.aip.org/research/visa-immigration/legal-opposition.

Last updated

March 4, 2026