ACLU says MSU international students still in danger of harm and deportation

The Russell Smith Courthouse, home to the Missoula Division of the U.S. District Court of Montana. (Photo by Micah Drew)

The U.S. government has already addressed the issue that prompted two international students at Montana State University to file a lawsuit, prompting the U.S. Attorneys Office to argue in federal court Tuesday that the case should be dismissed as moot. However, the ACLU of Montana contends that without a court order, the students remain vulnerable to potential future deportation and policy shifts.

Arguments were presented in Missoula at the U.S. District Court of Montana, regarding the governments motion to dismiss a lawsuit stemming from a Trump-era policy that caused many international students to lose their visa statuses. In May, federal Judge Dana Christensen blocked the government from deporting the MSU students based on the contested federal records, a decision currently under review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

John Newman, representing the U.S. Attorneys Office, stated that the case is now moot. He noted that between 3,000 and 5,000 international students nationwide faced similar situations, and around 15% pursued legal action. According to court documents, the Department of Homeland Security has reversed its policy for all affected students and abandoned the initiative, which previously demanded immediate departure from the U.S. Newman argued that, since the students are no longer impacted and the government does not plan to resume such actions, the lawsuit should be dismissed.

In April 2025, the MSU students discovered that their F-1 visa records in the federal Student Exchange Visitor Information System had been terminated, which jeopardized their class enrollment, work authorization, and exposed them to deportation. The F-1 visa permits foreign students to study in the U.S. and, after a year, engage in work-related training or internships.

The students sued Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and the acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, claiming unlawful termination of their records. Judge Christensen issued a temporary restraining order and later an injunction. The government reinstated the records, and Newman stated that the students could sue again if future harm occurs, but the current issue is resolved.

Newman described the previous policy as ineffective and said it would not be repeated. In contrast, ACLU attorney Alex Rate argued that the government acted outside its own regulations when terminating the students records without convictions or sufficient prison sentences. Rate emphasized that the government retains broad discretion over future record terminations, leaving the students at risk without a court order. He also criticized the lack of a clear, binding policy from the government.

The case, filed by John Roe of Iran and Jane Doe of Turkey on April 14, 2025, involves Roe pursuing a doctorate in electrical engineering and Doe earning a masters in microbiology. Roe continues his studies, expecting to graduate within a year, while Doe has completed her degree and is working in the U.S. under the Optional Practical Training program.

Rate highlighted the severe stress caused by the governments previous policy, including one student who nearly self-deported permanently. He argued that only a court order can provide lasting protection, as the officials who previously terminated the students records cannot guarantee it wont happen again. Newman countered that these concerns are hypothetical and outside the scope of the lawsuit.

Judge Christensen stated he would issue a ruling as soon as possible.

Author: Sophia Brooks