Michigan State University filed a declaration in federal court Monday in support of a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration over what the university described as a sudden restriction on work-experience opportunities for international students.
The challenge was brought by four groups that represent higher-education organizations and their administrators. MSU is a member of two of them.
Their lawsuit argues that the Department of Homeland Security “abruptly changed a position that the federal government had held for more than thirty-five years ... while simultaneously threatening college and university officials with criminal prosecution.”
The result of the DHS policy, according to the director of MSU’s office for international students, would be fewer international enrollees.
“MSU has welcomed international students to campus for over 150 years and benefited greatly from their many contributions,” Krista McCallum Beatty wrote. “Fewer international students will be a loss felt by the entire MSU community.”
At issue are rules authorizing international students on F-1 visas — used for attending academic institutions in the U.S. — to participate in select internships and other experiential learning opportunities.
Those placements must be directly related to the student’s area of study and, under the rules, “an integral part of an established curriculum.”
According to the lawsuit, DHS has traditionally interpreted “integral” experiences to mean either elective opportunities for which the student earns academic credit or programs that are a mandatory requirement for the completion of the student’s degree.
In August, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which oversees F-1 visas for DHS, issued two “broadcast messages” that the universities say significantly restrict access to those training programs.
The messages instructed schools to only authorize a work experience “if its absence would make the attainment of a degree an impossibility and if the work associated with [the experience] is required for all students pursuing that degree.”
The lawsuit claims the broadcasts amount to a sudden and unlawful regulatory change and that the new interpretation eliminates opportunities that aren’t mandatory but are still essential to learning, like “a psychology student shadowing a mental health provider” or “a law student interning in a judge’s chambers.”
“Ongoing harm to MSU,” university says: international students have lost opportunities
McCallum Beatty, the MSU international student office director, filed a declaration supporting the suit, alongside leaders and administrators of 11 other universities and colleges.
“Experiential learning opportunities, such as internships, practicums, and clinic or field placements, are a critical part of MSU's educational mission,” McCallum Beatty wrote.
McCallum Beatty wrote that in a typical year MSU approves those opportunities for about 500 students among the 4,000 who attend the university on F-1 visas. The experiences are reviewed for eligibility each semester.
According to the declaration, the eligibility requirements laid out in ICE’s August broadcast messages “are causing ongoing harm to MSU.”
McCallum Beatty wrote the directives came “at a critical time - the week before fall semester classes started.” As a result, McCallum Beatty wrote, her office was forced to deny 62 pending applications.
Among the MSU students who lost opportunities, she wrote, are:
- A doctoral student in chemistry forced to turn down “two prestigious fellowships that would have allowed them to lead research projects”
- An undergraduate computer science major unable “to complete a competitive internship with a Fortune 500 company”
- A doctoral student in Music scheduled “to teach a class at a nearby university,” who not only lost “a valuable learning experience, but … left the university without an instructor and having to cancel the course”
Lawsuit challenges “DHS’s attempt to rewrite history”
The lawsuit MSU is supporting alleges that ICE’s broadcast messages “are unlawful several times over” because they change regulatory guidance “with no substantive explanation, opportunity for comment, or even acknowledgement of the change,” while “exposing institutions and officials to penalties for past conduct that fully complied with the government’s position at the time.”
A broadcast issued by ICE on August 12 was framed as a “reminder” of eligibility requirements. The agency said it had noticed an increase in authorizations “that do not meet regulatory requirements,” and was “increasing its scrutiny … to ensure compliance with federal regulations.”
The lawsuit describes the broadcast as a substantive policy change passed off “as mere ‘reminders’ of existing obligations, as if its new standards had been the rule all along.”
In the broadcast, DHS warned that failure to adhere to the guidelines could result in an institution losing the ability to host students on F-1 visas, and emphasized that school administrators who approve a training program do so “under penalty of perjury.”
The lawsuit argues that administrators “now face threats of criminal liability for authorizations that complied fully with the government’s own rules,” and that institutions “have had no choice but to comply immediately, given the government’s threat to strip their ability to enroll international students at all.”
The groups are asking a judge to strike down the eligibility requirements laid out in ICE’s broadcasts and to affirm that eligible opportunities can include elective experiences taken for credit.
A spokesperson for ICE told Michigan Public that the agency “does not comment on pending litigation.”
