MADISON, Wis. — The ACLU of Wisconsin filed two amicus briefs this week in federal court urging judges to block the federal government from again revoking the legal status of thousands of international students, despite the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) recent claims that it is reversing course on a controversial mass termination policy.
The briefs were filed in Jane Doe #1 v. Kristi Noem and Isserdasani v. Kristi Noem, both pending before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. In both cases, international students are challenging the abrupt revocation of their F-1 visa status in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), a move that effectively stripped them of their ability to study, work, or legally remain in the United States.
Since late March, approximately 4,700 students across the country, including dozens in Wisconsin, have had their immigration status revoked without advance notice or a chance to contest the action. According to the ACLU, the mass revocations violate both the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
“These terminations were not grounded in individualized assessments or lawful criteria,” the ACLU wrote. “They appear to reflect a nationwide campaign to purge SEVIS of students based on encounters with law enforcement, including events as minor as traffic violations or prior non-criminal immigration interactions.”
The ACLU briefs cite multiple court rulings from across the country where judges issued temporary restraining orders or injunctions in favor of students in nearly identical circumstances. Courts in California, Montana, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Washington, D.C., have concluded that the government likely violated students’ due process rights by terminating status without notice or meaningful explanation.
Notably, the briefs challenge the government’s argument that the issue is now moot. On April 25, the Department of Justice informed several courts outside Wisconsin that DHS intended to roll back the terminations, a decision the agency attributed to widespread legal challenges and mounting court losses.
But the ACLU of Wisconsin insists that reactivating SEVIS records does not eliminate the ongoing harm or guarantee that the same illegal actions will not recur.
“Voluntary compliance does not moot constitutional claims,” the brief states, citing Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services. “The government has offered no assurance that it will not re-terminate these records immediately upon dismissal of the lawsuits.”
According to the briefs, DHS failed to follow its own regulations. Federal law permits termination of student status only under limited circumstances: revocation of a previously granted waiver, the introduction of a private immigration bill in Congress, or formal notice in the Federal Register based on national security, diplomatic, or public safety concerns. None of these conditions applied to the affected students.
Instead, ICE issued boilerplate SEVIS entries such as: “Individual identified in criminal record check and/or had their VISA revoked,” with no further explanation or opportunity to respond. The ACLU argues this lack of individualized notice violates Supreme Court precedent on due process protections for noncitizens, most recently reaffirmed in Trump v. J.G.G. and Noem v. Abrego Garcia earlier this month.
Further, the brief describes reports of a DHS task force using data analytics and social media monitoring to flag international students for removal based on prior law enforcement interactions or low-level infractions, regardless of actual legal violations.
“The government’s indiscriminate use of SEVIS terminations has functioned as an unlawful backdoor to deportation,” the ACLU wrote, warning that ICE’s misuse of data to trigger removals represents a dangerous departure from the constitutional and regulatory safeguards that define immigration enforcement.
Even where SEVIS records have been reinstated, students remain vulnerable. Termination of status triggers automatic visa cancellation, according to the Department of State. Students who leave the country may be unable to return, and reinstatement—if permitted at all—is discretionary and non-appealable under current regulations.
The ACLU’s filings also argue that the APA was violated on three counts: the terminations were not in accordance with law, were arbitrary and capricious, and were contrary to constitutional rights. Agency decisions that fail to follow statutory or regulatory authority, or that provide no rational explanation for action, violate basic administrative law principles.
“Each student received the same decision with the same boilerplate language, without regard to their individual situation,” the ACLU wrote. “Such actions are the textbook definition of arbitrary and capricious.”
The stakes extend beyond legality. According to the ACLU’s filings, the terminations have disrupted academic careers, endangered visa renewal and travel plans, and inflicted lasting emotional and psychological harm.
“This administration’s mass termination of students’ immigration statuses, without notice or due process, is another blatant assault on constitutional rights,” said ACLU of Wisconsin Senior Staff Attorney Tim Muth in a statement. “International students are a vital community in our state’s universities, and no administration should be allowed to circumvent the law to strip students of status, unilaterally disrupt their studies, and put them at risk of deportation.”
The ACLU is urging the court not only to deny any motions to dismiss the lawsuits, but to issue a clear ruling that the government’s conduct was unlawful. Citing prior case law, the briefs argue that emotional distress and continued legal uncertainty qualify as irreparable harm that warrants injunctive relief—even if the government has temporarily paused its actions.
The legal battle now turns to whether the courts will grant the ACLU’s request for a ruling that declares the SEVIS terminations unconstitutional and illegal under administrative law, and whether affected students will receive lasting protection against further status revocations.
The cases, Jane Doe #1 v. Kristi Noem and Isserdasani v. Kristi Noem, remain pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.
