ICE just got stopped: Judge restores visas of 133 students kicked out without warning

A federal judge in Georgia has issued a significant ruling mandating that the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reinstate the legal status of 133 foreign students, whose F-1 visas were terminated without due process. The decision marks a pivotal moment in ongoing debates surrounding immigration enforcement and administrative accountability in the U.S. education system, especially for international students facing sudden bureaucratic decisions that can derail their academic and professional trajectories.

Why Were These Students’ Visas Revoked?

According to court filings, the students affected by the mass visa terminations were legally enrolled in U.S. educational institutions and maintained valid immigration status under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP). Many of them were reportedly in good academic standing and were close to completing their degrees. However, in late March 2025, ICE revoked their F-1 visas and deactivated their records in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), a government database used to track international students.

The plaintiffs argued that they were not provided prior notice, an explanation, or any opportunity to challenge the decision, which violated their constitutional right to due process. These abrupt terminations left the students vulnerable to arrest, deportation, and disqualification from continuing their studies, internships, or employment authorisations under optional practical training (OPT).

What Did the Court Rule, and On What Grounds?

U.S. District Judge Victoria Calvert issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on April 20, compelling ICE and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to restore the students’ SEVIS records and legal immigration status retroactively to March 31, 2025. The judge found that the government had likely violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by failing to provide notice-and-comment procedures and had infringed upon the students’ Fifth Amendment rights by denying them due process.

In her ruling, Judge Calvert stated that the terminations appeared to exceed ICE’s statutory authority and described the potential harm to students as “irreparable.” She acknowledged the cascading consequences, which included loss of legal status, deportation risk, interruption of academic progress, and severe mental and emotional distress. She further asserted that the balance of harms clearly favoured the plaintiffs and that preserving due process is in the public interest.

Who Filed the Lawsuit and Who Are the Defendants?

The lawsuit was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in conjunction with several other advocacy groups. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, the case named several high-ranking government officials as defendants, including Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and Attorney General Pam Bondi.

The plaintiffs contended that ICE used the SEVIS termination as a coercive tactic rather than a legitimate enforcement mechanism. They argued that such actions reflect a broader pattern of arbitrary enforcement practices that disproportionately affect vulnerable student populations who lack sufficient recourse against sudden policy changes.

What Was the Government’s Justification for the Visa Terminations?

In defence, the government argued that the visa revocations were legally justified under current immigration laws and regulations. ICE maintained that some students were flagged during background checks or due to administrative inconsistencies and therefore became subject to visa revocation or deportation proceedings. The government also argued that restoring these students’ statuses would unduly interfere with the executive branch’s authority over immigration policy and enforcement.

However, Judge Calvert rejected this line of reasoning, emphasising that executive power in immigration matters does not override the procedural and constitutional rights guaranteed under U.S. law. The ruling, she indicated, ensures that immigration enforcement remains consistent with legal standards and does not become arbitrary or punitive without legal recourse.

How Does This Case Reflect Broader Immigration Enforcement Concerns?

This ruling arrives amid increasing scrutiny over ICE’s handling of student visas and broader immigration practices that have drawn criticism from legal experts, universities, and human rights organisations. Over the past several years, ICE has been accused of employing aggressive tactics in its visa oversight mechanisms, especially targeting students from developing countries.

Historically, SEVIS was designed as a post-9/11 tool to monitor non-immigrant student populations for national security purposes. However, critics have long argued that it has evolved into a rigid and punitive system that lacks transparency and offers limited safeguards for students caught in bureaucratic crossfire.

The 2020 incident involving the now-defunct University of Farmington, a fake university set up by ICE to catch visa fraud, further underscored the contentious relationship between enforcement tactics and student rights. Hundreds of students, many of whom claimed they were unaware of the university’s illegitimacy, were arrested or deported under what legal advocates described as entrapment. The recent court order revisits these concerns and reasserts the role of judicial oversight in curbing executive overreach.

What’s Next for the Students and the Legal Battle?

While the TRO offers immediate and temporary relief, a hearing for a preliminary injunction is scheduled for April 24. If granted, this could extend protections for the affected students and potentially open the door for systemic reforms in how student visa terminations are handled. Legal experts suggest that this case could serve as a precedent for future challenges to immigration enforcement actions that are executed without procedural fairness.

The ACLU has urged ICE to immediately comply with the court’s order and to implement clearer procedural safeguards that uphold the constitutional rights of international students. Akiva Freidlin, senior staff attorney at ACLU-Georgia, said in a statement that the U.S. Constitution guarantees due process protections to all individuals on American soil, and that government agencies must be held accountable when they act outside the bounds of the law.

The students, many of whom face uncertainty about their academic futures and immigration status, have expressed cautious optimism. University administrators and international student offices across the U.S. have also called for increased transparency and support mechanisms to protect students from abrupt enforcement actions that lack justification.

Why This Ruling Matters for the Future of International Education

The court’s decision underscores the critical need for fairness, consistency, and transparency in immigration enforcement, especially when it concerns educational mobility. The United States hosts over a million international students annually, contributing significantly to the economy and enriching academic institutions. Sudden policy shifts or opaque enforcement actions risk undermining this vital sector and deterring future talent from seeking education in the U.S.

Legal scholars view the Georgia ruling as a judicial reaffirmation of the principle that no government entity is above the law, particularly when it comes to enforcing policies that affect non-citizens. As the global competition for top academic talent intensifies, ensuring that international students are treated with fairness and respect remains a cornerstone of maintaining the U.S.’s educational leadership.