U.S. government accuses Iowa court of overreach in protecting UI international students

IOWA CITY — In April, four anonymous University of Iowa students sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for terminating, without explanation or due process, their status in the Student Exchange Visitor System.

The UI students’ lawsuit was filed as more than 1,500 students from hundreds of colleges and universities nationally reported sudden and unexpected changes to the SEVIS listing or visa status.

The UI students were not alone in fighting the changes in court. A federal district judge in Georgia issued a temporary restraining order blocking the termination of 133 international students’ legal status.

“In April 2025, the U.S. government — principally through DHS, ICE, and the Department of State — initiated an unprecedented and sweeping campaign of student visa revocations and SEVIS status terminations, destabilizing the lives of hundreds of international students and universities across the country,” according to the UI student lawsuit.

Background

Days after the UI students’ lawsuit was filed, a judge granted a temporary restraining order blocking the terminations and other government threats.

“Homeland Security ... shall not initiate removal proceedings against or deport (the students) on the basis of the termination of their F1 student status,” according to the court order, citing the “threat of irreparable harm.”

“(The UI students) describe disruption to their academic progress, inability to complete their course of study or graduate, inability to pay bills, imminent removal due to loss of legal status, resulting stress and anxiety, and loss of substantial sums already invested in their educations.”

After denying the students’ request to remain anonymous — requiring they state their names to pursue the lawsuit — U.S. District Judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger on May 15 ruled in their favor, making the restraining order permanent through resolution of the case by granting a preliminary injunction.

In doing so, she denied the government’s arguments — “most of which reduce to the assertion that SEVIS entries are not indicative of actual student status.”

“SEVIS status is not meaningless,” Ebinger wrote. “Immediate consequences flow from reliance by Homeland Security, the Department of State, employers, and academic institutions on SEVIS records as proof of student status.”

What’s happened since

The Department of Homeland Security in June asked the judge to alter the preliminary injunction by removing some aspects that are “unnecessarily broad” or face technical limitations.

Specifically, Ebinger through her injunction required the department to not only restore the students’ SEVIS statuses, backdated to the date of termination to avoid a gap, but to demonstrate that “schools and other agencies may view notations as to backdating.”

She also ordered the department not to arrest, detain, or transfer the students “without first providing adequate notice to both this court and (the students’ attorneys)”; and she barred deportation initiation based on the students’ status terminations.

“The court’s order appears to restrict certain discretionary decisions that are outside of its jurisdiction,” according to the government’s request for an amended injunction. “The Immigration and Nationality Act divests this court of jurisdiction over discretionary decisions concerning DHS’s decision to initiate or commence proceedings to arrest, detain, transfer, remove or deport an alien.”

Given the Department of Homeland Security includes the U.S. Secret Service and Homeland Security Investigations, “the scope of the injunction as written covers these law enforcement agencies and prohibits them from arresting or detaining (the students) for any reason, including a violation of a criminal statute.”

“Such relief was not requested by (the students), is not tied to the injuries alleged, and essentially enjoins the enforcement of criminal statutes against the (students),” the government argued.

Noting the department has no pending prosecutions against the students, government attorneys accused the court of “preemptively enjoin(ing) such actions in the future, even if, for example, an arrest warrant is obtained in a different jurisdiction, or agents have probable cause to arrest.”

“Because the scope of the injunction is impermissibly broad, this court should alter the injunction to avoid enjoining any criminal arrests, detentions, or prosecutions,” attorneys argued.

To the requirement it show proof that other schools and agencies will see the backdated SEVIS note and not hold the reversed terminations against the students, government officials argued they can’t comply due to “technical limitations.”

“(The department) is unable to comply with the court’s order for records of screenshots demonstrating that schools and other agencies may view notation in SEVIS, as the system does not allow the notations to be viewable by users outside of (the student exchange visitor program),” according to the government.

But attorneys representing the students took issue with the request — arguing, for starters, that the government hasn’t tried very hard to comply.

  Buy Photo

“What is noticeably missing ... is any description of the efforts (the department) has made to correct this technical limitation,” attorney Katherine Melloy Goettel wrote on behalf of the UI students. “(The government) submits no evidence that ICE attempted to fix this technical limitation; they submit no evidence that ICE consulted software technicians; and they submit no evidence of the time or cost it would take to make such fixes to the system.”

Instead, the department drafted a letter to the students about their backdated SEVIS statuses that they can provide to any agency that asks — putting “the onus on them.”

“This lack of effort stands in stark contrast to the substantial resources ICE and the Department of State expended on the ‘Student Criminal Alien Initiative’,” Goettel wrote.

In April, department officials in a Washington, D.C. courtroom testified that 10 to 20 Immigration and Customs Enforcement employees had spent weeks combing through the records of 1.3 million student visa holders to look for criminal records or minor law enforcement encounters. ICE then sent that information to the Department of State, which recommended the SEVIS terminations.

“This practice did not just affect the four (students) in this case; ICE terminated the SEVIS records of more than 3,000,” Goettel wrote. “And yet, (department officials) have failed to put minimal effort into fixing their computer system to restore the SEVIS records retroactively.

“ICE’s lack of effort to comply with this court’s order (and others from around the country) is disproportionate to the effort the agency put into first terminating international students’ SEVIS records; terminations that violated the immigration regulations and international students’ due process rights.”

She also flagged the rule that attorneys can’t introduce new evidence, legal theories, or arguments in motions like the one they filed for an amended injunction — reporting several of the points they’re raising now were not raised at the briefing.

“Furthermore, the preliminary injunction does not prohibit DHS and its components from investigating, arresting, or detaining (the students), but it requires the due process before it do so; namely ‘adequate notice to both this court and plaintiffs’ counsel’.”

Vanessa Miller covers higher education for The Gazette.

Comments: (319) 339-3158; vanessa.miller@thegazette.com