Update (October 10): On October 5, four higher-education organizations sued in federal court in Massachusetts, asking the court to set aside these two notices. As of today we have found no court ruling, and the notices still apply. A new section below covers the lawsuit, and two older sections ("what about CPT that's already approved" and "We'll keep following this") were updated to match.
The email from your school is usually just two or three sentences: CPT approvals are paused, the school is reviewing new guidance, and there's no date yet for when they'll resume.
And that's it.
If you have an offer with a start date next month, or you're already in an internship and need to go to work next week, those two or three sentences don't solve anything. What you want to know is: Does the authorization I have now still count? Could I already be out of compliance?
This article separates what's certain from what isn't.
Can CPT still be approved right now?
The short answer: under these two notices, CPT can still be approved, but only when every student in the program must do the internship, and some schools have paused even that while they review. The lawsuit has not restored anything.
What happened:
- On October 5, the Association of American Universities (AAU), the Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, NAFSA: Association of International Educators, and the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts (AICUM) sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The defendants are ICE, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice, along with the officials who head them. The case number is 1:26-cv-14520, and the public record is on CourtListener's docket page.
- They are challenging the two August notices above. Their position: CPT has allowed credit-bearing internships for 35 years, and the notices reverse that without warning and without public notice-and-comment. These are the plaintiffs' claims, not the court's findings. See NAFSA's statement.
- The plaintiffs also asked for a preliminary injunction (an order that stops the notices from being enforced while the case goes on). Their supporting memorandum was filed on October 6. The case has been assigned to Judge Julia Kobick.
- The latest status we could find: CourtListener's record runs through October 6 and shows only procedural entries such as filing, lawyers' appearances and extra-page requests. News coverage mentions no hearing date and no ruling. So no court order says the notices are void. An ICE spokesperson told the press the agency does not comment on pending litigation.
In plain terms: the case has just started and the judge has not said anything yet. Until a judge acts, the notices are being applied as written. Filing a lawsuit does not pause them.
On the school side, according to news reports and school notices:
- Harvard: Harvard College, Harvard Law School, Harvard Medical School, the Graduate School of Design and the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences no longer approve CPT (The Harvard Crimson, October 6).
- MIT: New and pending CPT requests are paused, and MIT is checking whether current students' authorizations are still valid. It says it will contact students who hold one (MIT's student paper The Tech, October 1).
- Boston University: The International Students and Scholars Office says it will pause some CPT approvals and keep approving requests that are clearly required to complete the program. It gives no restart date (BU ISSO notice, August 28).
- The Boston Globe reported on October 6 that Harvard, MIT, Boston University, Tufts and Suffolk have all paused most new and pending requests. Outlets do not list exactly the same schools, so check your own school's international office page for what it is doing now.
What this means for you: If your CPT has not been approved yet, don't count on this lawsuit to fix it within weeks. Plan around the current reading, and ask your school whether it has a date to resume approvals. If your program does not require the internship of every student, treat this as a signal that you may need a different plan, and talk to your DSO or an attorney.
One more warning, so you don't mix up two cases. The rule setting a fixed period of stay for F-1 and J-1 students was blocked by a federal court with a preliminary injunction on September 14 (see the Presidents' Alliance litigation page). That is a separate matter, which we covered in the fixed-period-of-stay rule for F-1 and J-1 students. It does not affect these two CPT notices.
One email each month when the bulletin lands. Unsubscribe anytime.
First, the most urgent question: what about CPT that's already approved?
Neither document mentions it.
We went through the full text of BCM 2608-01 and BCM 2608-02. Not one sentence says "how already approved authorizations will be handled." There's no retroactivity clause and no transition arrangement.
That means two things, and you have to accept both:
- Your CPT authorization is still there on your SEVIS record right now, and no document says it's been invalidated.
- But no document guarantees it won't be reviewed after the fact either.
So only your DSO can answer this, and you need to ask about your own authorization, not rely on what classmates pass along. What schools usually pause is new applications and extensions, which doesn't mean approved authorizations are voided on the spot. But that's a common-sense inference, not something the documents say. The difference matters.
Some schools are already doing a look-back: MIT says publicly that it is checking whether current students' authorizations are valid. So don't assume you're fine just because nobody has contacted you. Ask.
What actually happened
In August, the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), part of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), sent two notices to schools nationwide within two weeks:
August 12: said SEVP had found a growing number of noncompliant CPT authorizations and would step up review. This one was still just a reminder.
August 24: set the standard in stone. This is the one that made schools panic.
The reason for the panic is in this sentence: schools that don't comply could lose their certification to enroll international students.
For a school, this isn't a fine. It's the survival of its entire international student program. So until every course has been checked one by one, shutting the gate first is the lowest-cost option. That's what's behind the vague email you got.
One more thing: the August 24 notice also opened a new channel. If a school's DSO feels pressured by the school to make noncompliant determinations, the DSO can call or email SEVP and Homeland Security Investigations directly to report it. Opening a reporting line inside the school says more about SEVP's attitude this time than the text itself.
A question you can answer yourself
The new standard sounds complicated, but in practice it comes down to one sentence:
Do American students in your program also have to do this internship to graduate?
- Yes: that fits SEVP's current position.
- No, or it's an elective: according to these two notices, it doesn't meet the requirement.
This isn't our interpretation. The August 24 document says:
"This means that all students — foreign and American — are required to participate in practical training if they are enrolled in an established curriculum where practical training is integral."
And the flip side:
"In any instance where an elective course is optional, making the CPT optional, the integral and required aspects of CPT would not be met."
You don't need to wait for your school's notice to know roughly which side you're on.
If the answer is "no"
Then you have to face an uncomfortable possibility: your program's CPT arrangement may not hold up under the new standard.
How much this matters is completely different for different people.
If you just wanted a summer internship, it means one fewer opportunity. If you're in the kind of program where you can start CPT in your first semester and rely on it to keep working full time, what's shaken is your whole status plan. Programs like this match exactly what the notice describes: the internship isn't required for every student, but set up for those who need work authorization.
We won't draw a conclusion for you, and we don't know how this will ultimately be enforced. But if this is your situation, you should find a lawyer now instead of waiting for the school's next email.
Some things haven't changed, so don't scare yourself
- Not a single word of the regulations has changed. A DHS spokesperson said "Nothing about these regulations has changed." What changed is how they interpret and enforce them.
- OPT isn't affected this time. The documents explicitly separate the two: OPT was never part of the curriculum and isn't used to meet academic requirements. This round targets CPT.
- CPT doesn't require an EAD (work permit). The documents say so explicitly, so don't be misled by what agents tell you.
- This isn't a new rule. The end of the document itself says it "is not itself a rule or a final action by SEVP." The plaintiffs in the lawsuit argue that it works like a new rule without going through the rulemaking process, and that is for the court to decide.
That last point cuts both ways. The good side is that it creates no new legal obligations. The bad side is that there's no comment period, no effective date and no buffer. It took effect the day it was issued.
What you can do now
- Answer that question yourself first: do American students in my program also have to do this internship? The answer decides your next steps.
- Ask your DSO about the status of your own authorization. Don't ask "what's the school's policy"; ask "where does mine stand right now."
- You have to apply for CPT yourself, and the school updates SEVIS after approving it. Don't assume the school will start the process for you.
- Both PDFs are public, with links above. If what the school tells you verbally doesn't match the original text, go by the original.
- If you're in a day-1 CPT program, don't wait.
We'll keep following this
The document numbers are BCM 2608-01 and BCM 2608-02. If SEVP issues another notice, or writes this position into a formal rule, we'll cover it. How the court responds to the preliminary injunction motion is the next big step in the lawsuit, and we will update this page when there is a ruling. We'll also report as schools resume approvals. For another student-related rule in the queue, see the proposed $70,000 fee for F-1 OPT.
Case: Association of American Universities v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 1:26-cv-14520 (D. Mass.), filed October 5, 2026.
This round is tighter enforcement, not a change in the regulations. If you want to know what legal basis OPT and CPT actually rest on, whether the executive branch can cancel them on its own, and which rule is actually in the queue right now, see Could OPT and CPT Disappear Overnight?.