Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherBrowse by ChannelAbout the NetworkJoin the NetworkProductsSub-MenuProducts OverviewBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAbout UsContactSubscribeSupport
Book a Demo
Search
Close

Trump Administration Abandons Plan That Would Have Required International Students Taking Fully Online Courses to Leave the Country

By Andrew J. Pincus, Lauren R. Goldman & Joel Silverstein on July 14, 2020
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Multiple Exposure Of Gavel And Justice Scale And Urban Scene

Today, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts announced that the federal government has agreed to rescind, on a nationwide basis, a policy that could have required hundreds of thousands of immigrant students studying at U.S. institutions to leave the country and likely curtail their studies. In the litigation challenging this policy, Mayer Brown represented and filed an amici curiae brief on behalf of 19 businesses and business associations that collectively power the U.S. economy.

On July 6, 2020, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) released a directive (the “Directive”) requiring all international students on F-1 visas studying in the United States, whose educational programs were going to remain fully remote, to depart the country. This Directive, and the FAQs explaining it that were released on July 7, replaced an earlier (and diametrically opposed) policy, announced in March 2020, under which ICE agreed to allow students to continue their programs remotely “for the duration of the emergency.”

In response, on July 8, 2020, the President and Fellows of Harvard College (“Harvard”) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”) filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government, seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the July 6 Directive.

On July 13, Mayer Brown and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed an amici curiae brief on behalf of numerous companies and organizations, representing business interests across the United States, in support of Harvard and MIT. The brief sought to explain to the Court the “benefits to the economy—and to American society as a whole—from the more than one million international students who choose to study at [U.S.] educational institutions, as well as the serious adverse economic consequences that [would have] result[ed] from [the] July 6 Directive.”

International students contribute billions of dollars each year to the U.S. economy and help to sustain the excellence of U.S. colleges and universities that produce skilled graduates and research critical to U.S. businesses. “[W]ithout international students, many U.S. STEM programs [would] contract sharply and ultimately cease to exist.” U.S. businesses rely on such programs (and the international students who populate them) for research to stay on the cutting edge of innovation and for a pool of talented future employees. Moreover, international students contribute directly to U.S. businesses as employees both during and after their courses of study—through special programs that permit students and recent graduates to stay in the United States and work in jobs relevant to their academic pursuits. Finally, international students provide “significant long-term benefits to businesses and the entire economy” through their contributions as entrepreneurs and educators, often long after their period of study has ended.

The July 6 Directive considered none of these factors, nor the substantial and legitimate reliance interests of international students and U.S. businesses on the original March 2020 policy.
Today, the plaintiffs and amici scored a significant victory that allows international students to continue their studies in the United States. This not only benefits them, but also the schools they attend, the classmates they learn with, and the businesses that hope to benefit from their patronage as customers and their contributions as employees. Mayer Brown is proud to have played a part in this meaningful outcome.

Mayer Brown attorneys Andrew Pincus, Lauren Goldman, Allison Aviki, and Joshua M. Silverstein represented the business amici.  Our Global Mobility practice attorneys, Liz Stern, Paul Virtue, and Max Del Rey supported the effort.

***

If you wish to receive periodic updates on this or other topics related to the pandemic, you can be added to our COVID-19 “Special Interest” mailing list by subscribing here. For any other legal questions related to this pandemic, please contact the Firm’s COVID-19 Core Response Team at FW-SIG-COVID-19-Core-Response-Team@mayerbrown.com.

Andrew J. Pincus

Andrew Pincus focuses his appellate practice on briefing and arguing cases in the Supreme Court of the United States and in federal and state appellate courts, as well as on developing legal arguments in trial courts.

Andy has argued 23 cases in the…

Andrew Pincus focuses his appellate practice on briefing and arguing cases in the Supreme Court of the United States and in federal and state appellate courts, as well as on developing legal arguments in trial courts.

Andy has argued 23 cases in the Supreme Court of the United States, four of them in the 2010 and 2011 Terms, including AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011). For his victory in Concepcion, Andy was named Litigator of the Week by the American Lawyer and Appellate Lawyer of the Week by The National Law Journal. Andy’s work in Concepcion and successful defense of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s right to run for office were cited by the American Lawyer in its article naming Mayer Brown as one of the top six US litigation firms in the 2012 Litigation Department of the Year report.

Read Andy’s full bio.

Read more about Andrew J. PincusEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Lauren R. Goldman Lauren R. Goldman

Lauren Goldman serves as co-head of Mayer Brown’s worldwide Litigation & Dispute Resolution practice. She is a member of the Supreme Court & Appellate group in the firm’s New York office.   Lauren has worked on many successful appeals from large punitive awards, including…

Lauren Goldman serves as co-head of Mayer Brown’s worldwide Litigation & Dispute Resolution practice. She is a member of the Supreme Court & Appellate group in the firm’s New York office.   Lauren has worked on many successful appeals from large punitive awards, including Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 127 S. Ct. 1057 (2007).

Lauren regularly litigates punitive damages issues in trial courts as well:  she has served as lead legal strategy counsel in connection with more than a dozen high-stakes jury trials, including two cases in which the plaintiffs unsuccessfully sought more than $1 billion in damages.  Lauren has handled legal issues at retrials limited to the amount of punitive and/or compensatory damages in Oregon, California, and Florida; in each case, the retrial jury awarded a fraction of the original jury’s verdict.  Lauren writes and speaks regularly on the subject of punitive damages law and, with Andy Frey and Evan Tager, is a co-author of the chapter on punitive damages in the West treatise Business and Commercial Litigation in Federal Courts.

Read Lauren’s full bio.

Read more about Lauren R. GoldmanEmailLauren's Twitter Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Health Care
  • Blog:
    COVID-19 Response Blog
  • Organization:
    Mayer Brown

LexBlog, Inc. logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers
99 Park Row
  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Products
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • Resource Center
  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center
  • Blogging 101

New to the Network

  • Beyond the First 100 Days
  • In the Legal Interest
  • Cooking with SALT
  • The Fiduciary Litigator
  • CCN Mexico Report™
Copyright © 2025, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo