Last month, Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) suddenly closed around 4,700 records in a database that lists foreign students with F-1 visas allowed attendance at American universities. That movement, that I was surrounded by panic Among students across the country, this was the result of the Trump administration’s “Student Criminal Foreigners Initiative.” But contrary to the meaning of the label, the initiative has affected many people with no criminal history justifying revoking their visas. Furthermore, ICE did not cite any other specific justifications mentioned in the association Rules. Instead, students were told that the record was finished because they “could not maintain their status otherwise.”
ICE subsequently restored these records with the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), but still included the notation of pre-termination. These black marks left uncertainty about whether thousands of students would be allowed to remain in the US and earn their degrees, along with the possibility that the ice could turn back the course at any time. Federal judges in California on Thursday issued It is a nationwide interim injunction aimed at rectifying that situation, and his reasoning highlights the surprising legal shortcuts that characterize President Donald Trump’s immigrant crackdown.
The Sevis controversy may seem surprising. But it illustrates some disturbing themes of Trump’s deportation crusades, including his indiscriminate approach, neglecting legitimate processes, blatant fl of statutory and constitutional requirements, a change in legal position and a determination to avoid judicial review.
The end of Sevis reflects the instincts that have become common in our society to influence change: move fast, break things.” I’m writing US District Judge Jeffrey White, George W. Bush’s appointee considering some Litigation by foreign students from the Northern California region. “That instinct must be checked when it contradicts the principles of established law.”
White’s interim injunction prohibits the government from “arrest and jailing any of the plaintiffs appointed in these cases, as well as situational individuals pending settlement of these cases.” The injunction also states that the government may not be able to impose “unfavorable legal effects” based on “outside the jurisdiction of the place of residence,” “outside the jurisdiction of the place of residence,” or “river.”[e] “Returning to the Record.”
Explaining the rationale for the national injunction, White says the plaintiffs “fulfil their burdens to demonstrate the possibility of irreparable harm.” He “sees no rational distinction between the harms caused to [named plaintiffs] He points out that “these cases and lawsuits around the US” “derive from the unified policies that continue the US, not just the lives of plaintiffs here, but also the lives of similarly located F-1 non-immigrants.”
The plaintiffs in the California lawsuit “alleges argued that the defendant violated the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution,” White ignored the legitimate process before implying the various ways the Trump administration is eager to expel as many foreigners as possible immediately. “Don’t make sure the accused are not uncertain,” he adds Archly.
White cites the Supreme Court’s 2001 ruling Zadvydasv. Davisand he points out that he unanimously reaffirmed that principle last month. Trump v. JGGaccompanied by the president’s attempt to deport suspected members of Venezuelan gangster Tren de Lagua under the alien enemy law. “The Fifth Amendment is well established in the context of the removal procedure that aliens are eligible to receive the legitimate process of law,” the court said it held that gang members had the right to challenge their designation as “an alien enemy” before being expelled.
Plaintiffs in California cases also alleged that the Student Criminal Foreigners Initiative was violated. Management Proceduresfederal courts allow “arbitrarily, whimsical, discretionary abuse, or “put aside” cases of agencies that are not in accordance with the law. White said the “overwhelming courts” considering the lawsuit by students whose Sevis records have ended, “considered that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in the merits of the same claims presented here.” It’s not difficult to see the reason.
To implement the administration’s initiative, ICE checked approximately 1.3 million student visa holders against a database maintained by the National Crime Information Center (NCIC). ICE “a list of individuals who have positive results for the State Department,” White points out. “After the State Department received these lists, it took about 15 minutes to determine that all SEVI records related to those names should be completed.”
As White points out, the list included students who “have some kind of contact with law enforcement,” but who have no belief that they “cannot maintain their status.” 8 CFR 214.1 (g)disqualifies those who commit “a violent crime that could result in a prison sentence of more than one year.” He mentions several plaintiffs in these cases who had no criminal history at all.
Testimony from Andre Watson, a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official, said: only Whether the individual who has achieved positive results in the NCIC database is an individual listed in the SEVIS database, the plaintiff states that it is likely to win the allegation that the decision to terminate the SEVIS record is voluntary and whimsical.
Another regulation, 8 CFR 214.1(d)lists three additional situations “Alien Non-immigrant Status Ends” but none of them apply here. “The records also show that the defendant was not dependent on any of the three circumstances stipulated,” White said, “the court also concludes that the plaintiff is likely to succeed in the merits of claiming that the defendant’s actions are against the law.”
The government argued that, contrary to what the plaintiffs alleged, termination of Sevis records was not equivalent to revoking the corresponding student visa. “The defendant argued that the termination was merely a ‘red flag’ and that closing Sevis records would not affect the immigration situation,” White points out. He “will participate in many courts around the US.” [that] I rejected this position. ”
DHS advises the public that if Sevis records are terminated because “Visa owners” fail to maintain their status, they will lose all off-campus and/or off-campus employment permits and “cannot re-enter the United States” after traveling abroad that they will “not be re-entered to the United States.” The department says that the termination will also cancel student dependent visas. The ICE agent added, “we may investigate to confirm students’ departures.” In other words, a student whose Sevis records have been terminated by the government’s own account will lose his visa-related privileges, including permission to remain in the United States.
According to White, that understanding was confirmed by the April 2025 “Notice of Intent to Reject”. According to “Beneficiary Sevis Record,” US Citizenship and Immigration Services said in it Let me know“Criminal history checks and the cancellation of the F-1 visa ended the status of F-1 non-immigrants on April 10, 2025,” White added, “The State Department describes Sevis’s records as “a definitive record of the status and visa eligibility of a student or exchange visitor.” In short, he states that “DHS officials and agents will interpret the SEVIS records of students, which correspond to actual F-1 student status.”
The government also claimed that ICE eliminated the harm caused by the termination of Sevis when it restored these records. However, the defendant “retrospectively responded to the plaintiff’s Sevis records,” White said. And the government has “sent letters to all F-1 non-immigrants whose records have been terminated to address those concerns and provide support documents,” he adds.
For these reasons, White states that the plaintiffs “indicate what they have for the defendant’s actions and suffer intense difficulties. Unlike letters that the defendant intends to send, the court grant provides the plaintiff with a measure of stability and certainty that they can continue their research and employment without the threat of hanging from their heads.”
White said the government “had a sudden turnaround” at the April 25 hearing in these cases, saying “Ice will begin to revive Sevis records and develop new policies to end the Sevis records in the future.” The next day, a government lawyer told White that Ice had “issued a new policy on termination of records.” The new policy, White Notes, contained two reasons for the termination: “not included on the DHS website.”
During the May 14 hearing, the government “advised the courts on yet another new development,” White said. “Ice is retroactively recovering Sevis’ records until the end of the records,” he said, adding that he would send instructions to all affected students.
These shifts “where these cases were filed” suggest that the Trump administration may be “hoping to place future Sevis terminations outside of judicial review,” White wrote. “At each turn of this and similar cases across the country, the defendant has changed courses sharply to meet his court’s concerns. It is unclear how this game at this mall will end unless the defendant is prohibited from cleaning its own enforcement regulations.”
