Association of American Universities v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 1:26-cv-14520 (D. Mass. filed Oct. 5, 2026)

A coalition of higher education organizations filed a federal lawsuit in the District of Massachusetts challenging the Student and Exchange Visitor Program’s new, much narrower approach to Curricular Practical Training (CPT) for F-1 students. The lawsuit targets two SEVP Broadcast Messages issued in August 2026 that, according to the plaintiffs, effectively eliminated CPT for elective internships and other practical training that students take for academic credit.

To be clear, this is not a Reddy Neumann Brown PC case. The lawsuit was brought by the Association of American Universities (AAU), the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts (AICUM), and NAFSA: Association of International Educators. We are covering it because of its direct impact on international students, the schools that enroll them, and the employers who host them.

It is also important to understand how early this case is. Only the complaint has been filed. The court has not ruled on anything, and the August guidance has not been stayed, vacated, or enjoined. Schools and Designated School Officials (DSOs) are still operating under SEVP’s current position, and the filing of the lawsuit does not, by itself, change how CPT is being authorized today. What the lawsuit does is put SEVP’s new interpretation squarely in front of a federal judge, and that makes it a case worth watching closely.

What Changed in August 2026

CPT allows F-1 students to participate in internships, practicums, cooperative education, and similar training while they are still enrolled. Under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f)(10)(i), the training must be directly related to the student’s major and must be “an integral part of an established curriculum.” Unlike Optional Practical Training (OPT), CPT is authorized by the school’s DSO in SEVIS and does not require an Employment Authorization Document from USCIS. For many students, it is the primary way to gain hands-on experience during their degree program.

On August 12, 2026, SEVP issued Broadcast Message 2608-01, titled “Reminder of Liability for DSOs Regarding CPT Authorization.” SEVP stated that it had observed a rise in CPT authorizations that do not meet regulatory requirements and that it was increasing its scrutiny of CPT approvals. The message instructs DSOs to authorize CPT only if its absence would make attainment of the degree “an impossibility” and only if the work is required for all students pursuing that degree. It also reminds DSOs that signing a Form I-20 to authorize CPT is a certification under penalty of perjury, and it warns that improper authorizations may expose both the school and the individual DSO to administrative or legal consequences, including withdrawal of the school’s SEVP certification and penalties for providing false information. The message references possible scrutiny from Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and invites employers, DSOs, students, and the public to report suspected practical training fraud.

Twelve days later, on August 24, 2026, SEVP followed with Broadcast Message 2608-02, “Guidance for Designated School Officials regarding Curricular Practical Training.” This second message is the clearest statement of SEVP’s new position. Written in a question-and-answer format, it states that CPT tied to an optional elective course does not satisfy the “integral and required aspects of CPT.” It goes on to say that when practical training is integral to a curriculum, all students in that curriculum, “foreign and American,” must participate in it. SEVP relies on a dictionary definition of “integral” as “essential to completeness” and draws a sharp line between CPT, which it describes as required, and OPT, which it describes as optional.

The August 24 message contains another point that employers should not overlook. SEVP states that all CPT must be conducted by sponsoring employers that have entered into cooperative agreements with the school. For companies that have hosted CPT interns without any formal agreement in place, that is a new compliance question in its own right, separate from whether a particular internship is required for the degree. The message also introduces a confidential tipline for DSOs who feel pressured by school leadership to make noncompliant attestations, and it repeats that failure to comply may cost a school its SEVP certification.

Notably, both Broadcast Messages close with an identical disclaimer stating that the message is not itself a rule or a final action by SEVP. That disclaimer may be significant because the body of the messages uses mandatory language and warns of enforcement consequences.

What the Lawsuit Is About

At its core, the dispute is simple. According to the complaint, the government has for decades recognized two separate pathways to CPT. The first is training taken for academic credit, which the plaintiffs say has always qualified whether the course is required or elective. The second is training that is not taken for credit, which qualifies only if it is mandatory to complete the degree. The plaintiffs allege that the August guidance takes the “mandatory” requirement that historically applied only to non-credit training and grafts it onto for-credit training as well.

A simple example shows why this matters. Imagine a graduate student in public health whose program offers, but does not require, a three-credit internship with a county health department. Some students in the program choose a research track instead; others take the internship. Under the interpretation the plaintiffs describe, that student could receive CPT for the internship because it is a credit-bearing part of the curriculum. Under the August guidance, the same internship would not qualify, because it is not required of every student in the program. A U.S. classmate could still take the internship for credit. The F-1 student could not, at least not through CPT.

The plaintiffs support their reading with the regulatory history of the 1991 rule that created the current CPT regulation, along with INS guidance from 1992 and later SEVP materials, which they allege described for-credit CPT as permissible whether “mandatory or elective.” The government has not yet responded, and these are the plaintiffs’ allegations at this stage, not findings by the court.

The complaint raises four claims under the Administrative Procedure Act:

1. Arbitrary and capricious change in position. The plaintiffs allege that SEVP reversed a longstanding interpretation without acknowledging the change, without a reasoned explanation, and without considering the reliance interests of schools, DSOs, and students.
2. Impermissible retroactivity. The plaintiffs allege that by framing the new standard as a “reminder,” the Broadcast Messages expose schools and DSOs to consequences for past authorizations that complied with the government’s position at the time.
3. Contrary to the existing regulation. The plaintiffs allege that the guidance conflicts with the text and history of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f)(10)(i), and that an agency cannot amend its own regulation through a broadcast message.
4. Failure to use notice-and-comment rulemaking. The plaintiffs allege that the Broadcast Messages create new, binding eligibility standards and are therefore legislative rules that required public notice and an opportunity to comment.

As relief, the plaintiffs ask the court to stay and vacate the Broadcast Messages, to bar the government from enforcing the new interpretation, including against CPT authorized before August, and to declare that for-credit CPT qualifies whether the training is required or elective. These are requests. None of that relief has been granted.

Why It Matters Now

According to the complaint, the August guidance is already reshaping how CPT works on campus, even at this early stage. The plaintiffs allege that schools across the country, from large research universities to small colleges, have narrowed their CPT authorizations in response, and some students have lost internships and placements they arranged months in advance. For students close to graduation, a lost placement may not be recoverable. Pre-completion OPT is rarely a practical substitute, since it requires an EAD from USCIS, is limited to 20 hours per week while school is in session, and reduces the time available for post-completion OPT after graduation.

DSOs are in a particularly difficult position. The enforcement language in the August 12 message, with its references to perjury, false statements, and HSI scrutiny, has understandably made many school officials far more cautious. The complaint alleges that some DSOs are now hesitant to approve even CPT they believe plainly meets the regulation.

For employers, the effects are practical and immediate. Companies, hospitals, research labs, and nonprofits that rely on CPT interns may see placements cancelled or delayed, and the cooperative agreement language in the August 24 message raises questions about whether existing host arrangements are sufficient.

One of the most important issues to watch involves CPT that has already been completed. The plaintiffs allege that DHS has begun asking about prior CPT when students later apply for other immigration benefits. We do not know whether, or how often, USCIS or other agencies will question CPT that was properly authorized under the government’s prior interpretation. But it is a fair concern for anyone who used CPT in the past and is now pursuing an H-1B petition, a change of status, or permanent residence. Students should keep their course records, credit documentation, and DSO approvals, and employers sponsoring former CPT participants should be aware that this issue could surface in future adjudications.

What Comes Next

The government will have the opportunity to respond, and the plaintiffs may ask the court for interim relief while the case proceeds. Beyond that, it is too early to predict how or when the court will rule. For now, however, SEVP has not withdrawn the August Broadcast Messages, and the filing of the lawsuit does not itself change the agency’s current CPT position.

This lawsuit was filed yesterday. Nothing has been decided, and the August guidance has not been invalidated. But because the case directly challenges SEVP’s new interpretation of CPT, its outcome could determine whether elective, for-credit internships remain available to international students in the United States. Students, schools, DSOs, and employers should watch it closely, and we will continue to provide updates as the case develops.

If your organization hosts F-1 interns or is planning to sponsor employees who participated in CPT, Reddy Neumann Brown PC can help you evaluate your situation and plan ahead.

Reddy Neumann Brown PC located in Houston, Texas, has been serving the business immigration community for over 25 years and is Houston’s largest immigration law firm focused solely on U.S. employment-based and investor-based immigration. We work with employers, employees and investors helping them navigate the immigration process quickly and cost-effectively.

By: Steven Brown

Steven A. Brown is a Partner at Reddy Neumann Brown PC, where he leads the firm’s Litigation Team, addressing delays and denials of immigration benefits, FOIA requests, and policy and regulatory challenges. Steven is dedicated to delivering practical and effective solutions for clients facing unreasonably delayed or unlawfully withheld immigration benefits, including Employment Authorization Documents (EADs), advance parole, green cards, 221(g) decisions, EB-5 delays, and other immigration-related matters. His litigation efforts were instrumental in Shergill, et al. v. Mayorkas, a landmark case that led to the U.S. government recognizing that under the INA, L-2 and E visa spouses are authorized to work incident to their status, eliminating the need for separate EAD applications. This case has transformed work authorization for thousands of families across the United States.