“We won!” - these words were echoed by 133 international students - perhaps the first cohort of plaintiffs to get a preliminary injunction , in a lawsuit of this size, which challenged the abrupt and unlawful SEVIS terminations.
Judge Victoria Marie Calvert of the US district court (for the Northern District of Georgia) issued a preliminary injunction on May 2, converting an earlier temporary restraining order (TRO) into a more lasting protection for the students while their lawsuit against the Trump administration proceeds.
The district court had previously directed the US agencies to reinstate the students' status retroactively to March 31, 2025, a directive that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) confirmed it had complied with by manually updating each student's SEVIS record.
Charles H. Kuck, founding partner at Kuck Baxter, an immigration law firm, who represented these students told TOI, “We are excited for our 133 plaintiffs who had the courage to challenge this in court. Litigation works, and we have to hold rogue administrative actions accountable.”
Also read: All 133 international students, including many Indians, who filed a lawsuit get their SEVIS records restored
Read more: Georgia district court provides interim relief as it blocks termination of legal status of 133 international students
All 133 international students, many of whom were from India, had proceeded with the lawsuit pseudonymously and had initially sought a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). The lawsuit was filed against ICE, Department of Homeland Security and the US Attorney General. This lawsuit was prompted by notices received between April 1 and April 14, informing them that their SEVIS records had been terminated—citing either criminal background checks, visa revocations, or alleged failure to maintain lawful status.
These international students were either enrolled in colleges and universities throughout the US, or were lawfully undergoing Optional Practical Training . They did not have any criminal history that would warrant their SEVIS records being terminated. Nonetheless, many of them received emails from their Designated School Official (DSO) directing them to leave the US immediately. Without active SEVIS records, students can lose their F-1 visa status , become unlawfully present, and risk deportation, despite being otherwise compliant with immigration rules.
The students argued that ICE acted arbitrarily and capriciously by terminating their records without sufficient justification or process. Judge Calvert agreed, concluding the students are likely to succeed on their legal claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
In her 35-page ruling, Judge Calvert stated that the students faced “imminent risk of irreparable harm,” including the loss of legal status, educational opportunities, and career prospects. Contrary to this, the US agencies had claimed that the harm to the international students owing to SEVIS termination was minimal and largely theoretical.
ICE claimed that the plaintiffs’ claims under the APA were supplanted by the Privacy Act, which they argued provided an adequate alternative remedy. However, the district court rejected this argument, noting that the Privacy Act does not apply to the plaintiffs as they are neither US citizens nor lawful permanent residents.
ICE also argued that the plaintiffs were seeking a mandatory injunction to reverse the termination of their SEVIS records, rather than a prohibitory injunction to preserve the status quo. The court dismissed this argument, clarifying that the status quo refers to the ‘last peaceable uncontested’ status before the dispute arose. ICE contended that the venue of the district court was improper for plaintiffs located outside Georgia and requested dismissal or transfer of their claims. However, the district court overruled this objection.
As ICE failed to provide a lawful explanation for the SEVIS terminations and did not submit evidence to support its claims during the hearings, Judge Calvert emphasized that the public has a vested interest in ensuring government agencies follow the law, noting: “There is no public interest in the perpetuation of unlawful agency action.”
The order now bars US agencies from terminating or undoing that reinstatement unless authorized by the district court. However, DHS may still take lawful actions under immigration law.
In a final move, the judge waived the requirement for the students to post a bond, which is typically required when a court grants injunctive relief, citing the students' good faith and the minimal risk of financial harm to the government.
Judge Victoria Marie Calvert of the US district court (for the Northern District of Georgia) issued a preliminary injunction on May 2, converting an earlier temporary restraining order (TRO) into a more lasting protection for the students while their lawsuit against the Trump administration proceeds.
The district court had previously directed the US agencies to reinstate the students' status retroactively to March 31, 2025, a directive that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) confirmed it had complied with by manually updating each student's SEVIS record.
Charles H. Kuck, founding partner at Kuck Baxter, an immigration law firm, who represented these students told TOI, “We are excited for our 133 plaintiffs who had the courage to challenge this in court. Litigation works, and we have to hold rogue administrative actions accountable.”
Also read: All 133 international students, including many Indians, who filed a lawsuit get their SEVIS records restored
Read more: Georgia district court provides interim relief as it blocks termination of legal status of 133 international students
All 133 international students, many of whom were from India, had proceeded with the lawsuit pseudonymously and had initially sought a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). The lawsuit was filed against ICE, Department of Homeland Security and the US Attorney General. This lawsuit was prompted by notices received between April 1 and April 14, informing them that their SEVIS records had been terminated—citing either criminal background checks, visa revocations, or alleged failure to maintain lawful status.
These international students were either enrolled in colleges and universities throughout the US, or were lawfully undergoing Optional Practical Training . They did not have any criminal history that would warrant their SEVIS records being terminated. Nonetheless, many of them received emails from their Designated School Official (DSO) directing them to leave the US immediately. Without active SEVIS records, students can lose their F-1 visa status , become unlawfully present, and risk deportation, despite being otherwise compliant with immigration rules.
The students argued that ICE acted arbitrarily and capriciously by terminating their records without sufficient justification or process. Judge Calvert agreed, concluding the students are likely to succeed on their legal claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
In her 35-page ruling, Judge Calvert stated that the students faced “imminent risk of irreparable harm,” including the loss of legal status, educational opportunities, and career prospects. Contrary to this, the US agencies had claimed that the harm to the international students owing to SEVIS termination was minimal and largely theoretical.
ICE claimed that the plaintiffs’ claims under the APA were supplanted by the Privacy Act, which they argued provided an adequate alternative remedy. However, the district court rejected this argument, noting that the Privacy Act does not apply to the plaintiffs as they are neither US citizens nor lawful permanent residents.
ICE also argued that the plaintiffs were seeking a mandatory injunction to reverse the termination of their SEVIS records, rather than a prohibitory injunction to preserve the status quo. The court dismissed this argument, clarifying that the status quo refers to the ‘last peaceable uncontested’ status before the dispute arose. ICE contended that the venue of the district court was improper for plaintiffs located outside Georgia and requested dismissal or transfer of their claims. However, the district court overruled this objection.
As ICE failed to provide a lawful explanation for the SEVIS terminations and did not submit evidence to support its claims during the hearings, Judge Calvert emphasized that the public has a vested interest in ensuring government agencies follow the law, noting: “There is no public interest in the perpetuation of unlawful agency action.”
The order now bars US agencies from terminating or undoing that reinstatement unless authorized by the district court. However, DHS may still take lawful actions under immigration law.
In a final move, the judge waived the requirement for the students to post a bond, which is typically required when a court grants injunctive relief, citing the students' good faith and the minimal risk of financial harm to the government.
You may also like
India suspends Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, Imran Khan's X accounts amid rising tensions with Pakistan
'I tried Gtech's best-selling £40 patio heater and was surprised at how much warmth it creates'
Lando Norris injured and 'upset' with George Russell after Miami GP incident
Echoes of 1971 as Ferozepur Cantt goes dark in 30-minute drill
'Big talk, no action': Cong's neta stirs row with toy Rafale
