A federal judge has ordered the immediate reinstatement of 133 international students’ visas after determining the government likely violated their constitutional rights by abruptly terminating their legal status without notice.
At a Glance
- U.S. District Judge Victoria Calvert issued a temporary restraining order requiring ICE to restore F-1 visas for 133 students by April 22
- The judge found the terminations likely exceeded legal authority and violated due process rights
- Many affected students are weeks away from graduation or in authorized work programs
- The ACLU filed the lawsuit, arguing the administration’s actions were coercive and unlawful
- A preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled for April 24 to further address the case
Constitutional Rights at Stake
The case emerged when Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) abruptly terminated the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) records of 133 international students without prior notice or explanation. Judge Victoria Marie Calvert, a federal district judge in Georgia, determined the students were likely to succeed in their arguments that the government had overstepped its authority and violated their constitutional protections. The judge ordered the Trump administration to restore the students’ legal status retroactively to March 31, 2025.
The ACLU of Georgia, along with several advocacy groups, filed the lawsuit against high-profile defendants including Attorney General Pam Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. Without the court’s intervention, the affected students faced potential detention and deportation, despite many having no criminal records and valid visas. The case highlights growing concerns about the administration’s approach to immigration enforcement involving international students.
Academic and Career Disruptions
The abrupt termination of student visas created immediate hardships for those affected, many of whom are enrolled in STEM programs or work placements. The situation was particularly dire for students nearing graduation or participating in authorized work programs, who stood to lose years of academic progress, scholarships, and career opportunities with little recourse.
“Many Plaintiffs are mere weeks away from attaining their degrees,” Calvert wrote. “The loss of timely academic progress alone is sufficient to establish irreparable harm.”
The case is seeking class-action status, which would extend protection to similarly situated students in several states and territories. According to court documents, the terminations have “severely disrupted the educational opportunities of students” who had been in good standing in their academic programs. The government must now restore the visas by April 22, according to the court’s order.
Broader Concerns About Due Process
Judge Calvert found the terminations likely violated both the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment’s due process protections. Critics have raised concerns that these actions may be part of a broader pattern affecting international students. Some reports suggest over 1,500 student visas have been revoked, with allegations that some revocations targeted students involved in political activism, particularly pro-Palestinian demonstrations.
The case also highlights a separate but related issue involving Rumeysa Ozturk, a detained international student whom a federal judge ordered transferred from Louisiana to Vermont. According to court documents, Ozturk was allegedly detained in retaliation for co-authoring an op-ed criticizing her university’s administration, raising additional concerns about free speech protections for international students.
Looking Ahead
While the temporary restraining order provides immediate relief for the 133 students, the legal battle continues. A preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for April 24 will determine whether more permanent protections will be granted. Government attorneys have argued that providing relief to the students interferes with the administration’s immigration policy authority, suggesting they will continue to contest the case.
The ruling represents a significant, if temporary, victory for international students and advocates of due process in immigration proceedings. However, the case also underscores ongoing tensions surrounding immigration enforcement and the rights of non-citizens studying in the United States, issues likely to remain contentious as immigration policies continue to evolve under the current administration.
