Federal Judge Mandates Restoration of Legal Status for 133 International Students

Federal Judge Mandates Restoration of Legal Status for 133 International Students

A federal judge in Georgia has mandated the Trump administration to restore the legal statuses of 133 international students by the upcoming deadline of Tuesday at 5 p.m. This ruling comes after Immigration and Customs Enforcement along with Homeland Security abruptly terminated these students’ F-1 student visas.

Many of these students maintain good academic standing and are nearing graduation. Their records were terminated in the Homeland Security’s SEVIS, a database used to monitor non-immigrant students. They argue that the terminations occurred without prior notice, a proper explanation, or any opportunity to respond, raising significant concerns about due process.

U.S. District Court Judge Victoria Calvert, appointed by President Biden, issued temporary restraining orders on behalf of the plaintiffs, compelling ICE and the Department of Homeland Security to retroactively reinstate their student statuses to March 31, 2025.

Claims of Unlawful Termination

Judge Calvert noted in her ruling that the plaintiffs appear to have a strong case, stating that the actions taken by the defendants exceeded statutory and regulatory authority, rendering them unlawful. This legal action comes amid broader scrutiny of immigration enforcement under the previous administration.

The lawsuit emerged from advocates including the American Civil Liberties Union and other organizations in the Northern District of Georgia. Notable defendants in this case include Attorney General Pam Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, alongside the acting Director of ICE, Todd Lyons.

Currently, the Department of Justice’s responses to the lawsuit are sealed, limiting public access to the government’s legal arguments.

The plaintiffs maintain that the terminations were not merely enforcement actions but coercive tactics intended to pressure students into leaving the United States voluntarily. They emphasize that most of the students have no criminal backgrounds and received very short notice to depart despite holding valid student visas.

Many of the affected students are enrolled in STEM programs or work placements, underscoring their status as high-achieving international scholars. This context raises further questions about the motivations behind the abrupt visa terminations.

Legal representatives for the plaintiffs stated, “The Department of Homeland Security’s actions in terminating SEVIS registrations seem designed to coerce students into abandoning their academic pursuits and effectively forcing them to self-deport, even though they remain compliant with their visa conditions.”

Government’s Defense of Visa Terminations

In defense of the revocations, the government asserts that these actions fall within the scope of existing laws and regulations. They argue that the terminations were justified, especially for students flagged during criminal checks or whose visas had been revoked. The government cited potential deportability, even in cases where no criminal arrests or convictions have occurred.

Judge Calvert countered by rejecting the government’s argument that providing relief to these students would undermine executive control over immigration. Her ruling indicated substantial overreach concerning legal authority and potential violations of both the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment.

Moreover, the judge concluded that the plaintiffs demonstrated an imminent threat of irreparable harm. This harm encompasses the loss of legal status, education, employment opportunities, and mental distress. The court found that the advantages of favoring the students outweigh the government’s claims.

Advocates celebrate this decision as a significant milestone for justice. Akiva Freidlin, the senior staff attorney at ACLU-Georgia, welcomed the ruling with enthusiasm.

Freidlin expressed that the Constitution guarantees rights to all individuals on U.S. soil. He stated, “The Trump administration cannot unduly threaten students with the loss of their immigration status or the possibility of arrest and deportation while disregarding due process.” He reaffirms that this ruling strongly indicates that the petitioning students are likely to prevail in the ongoing legal proceedings.

Future Proceedings

The case is poised for a preliminary injunction hearing on Thursday, April 24. This hearing could potentially provide longer-term solutions to the issues faced by these international students, allowing them to continue their studies without the looming threat of deportation.

As the legal proceedings unfold, the implications of this case will extend beyond the immediate situation of the 133 students, reflecting broader conversations around immigration reform and the treatment of international scholars in the United States.