U.S. attorney seeks pause in UI international student lawsuit due to shutdown

IOWA CITY — A U.S. attorney is asking a federal court to pause proceedings in a lawsuit four University of Iowa international students filed against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security — in part — because of the government shutdown and frozen funds.

“Defendants seek a stay because of the current lapse in appropriations, which limits the ability of government counsel to attend to this matter,” according to a motion the government filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa on Oct. 9 — just over a week after the shutdown first took hold Oct. 1.

“As the court undoubtedly is aware, the appropriations that fund the Department of Justice and other executive branch agencies lapsed after September 30, 2025, and it is currently unclear when this lapse in funding will conclude,” according to the filing. “This means that the government is generally unable to devote resources to civil litigation that does not have a nexus to public safety or national security.”

Background

That includes the case involving three current UI international students and one UI international graduate still training in Iowa, who in April sued the Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement Acting Director Todd Lyons for terminating, without explanation or due process, their status in the Student Exchange Visitor System.

Those four were among more than 6,000 students from colleges and universities coast to coast who in the spring reported sudden, unexpected revocation of their SEVIS or visa status. The two UI Chinese-national undergraduates, fourth-year UI doctorate student from India, and UI master of public health graduate from India — like many others — were flagged through a “Student Crime Alien Initiative” for having some form of criminal record.

  Buy Photo

The affected UI students had non-violent offenses like operating while intoxicated, driving without a valid license, or disorderly conduct — despite the law allowing termination only for “crimes of violence … for which a sentence of more than one year imprisonment may be imposed.”

A judge early on granted a temporary restraining order and then in May granted a preliminary injunction — blocking the students’ SEVIS terminations and other government threats of deportation and removal proceedings, pending final resolution of the case.

In response, a U.S. attorney on the case asked the judge to amend her order — arguing some requirements of her injunction weren’t possible, like proving that other schools and agencies can see the students’ restored statuses and backdated notations.

But the judge denied that request too — teeing up a government request she dismiss the case altogether, arguing it has addressed the students’ concerns, rendering the lawsuit “moot.”

What’s happened since

With that request outstanding, the government in September notified the judge of its intention to appeal her denial of its request that she amend her injunction — and last week pointed to that as another reason she should pause the case.

“Because the currently pending matters before this court are inextricably bound up in the appeal, this court has been divested of jurisdiction by operation of law,” according to U.S. attorney Richard D. Westphal, who cited relevant case law in making his argument.

“The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance — it confers jurisdiction on the Court of Appeals and divests the District Court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.”

Should the District Court retain oversight of the case — despite the shutdown and pending appeal — the government, at a very minimum, is asking for two additional weeks to meet its filing deadlines in the case, “given the potential complexity of the claims raised by (the students’) motion, in light of the government’s currently limited resources (given the above-described funding lapse), and the press of other cases.”

‘Precarious legal situation’

Still before the court is the government’s ask for total dismissal of the case — which the UI students in response have said remains relevant in securing their peace of mind.

“Defendants’ voluntary cessation of their unlawful conduct is not sufficient to moot this case as they have not shown with ‘absolute certainty’ that their unlawful conduct will not recur,” according to the students’ resistance to the motion to dismiss the case.

For example, days after landing the temporary restraining order — and with dozens of similar lawsuits pending across the country — ICE rolled out a new policy expanding the grounds on which it can terminate SEVIS records, according to the resistance.

A new list of reasons now allows the government to terminate records for — among other things — failure to comply with the terms of a student’s nonimmigrant status and if a student’s visa is revoked.

Beyond termination of a SEVIS record, according to the resistance, “This policy also states that ICE intends to ‘investigate or initiate removal proceedings’ against those found not to be following their nonimmigrant status or those who have had their visas revoked.”

Although government officials have sent letters to the UI international students stating their SEVIS terminations “will not, by itself, be used as a basis for denial of future immigration benefits,” their attorneys argue the new ICE policy would permit “significantly harsher consequences for (the students) should defendants decide to change their minds later.”

“Without permanent injunctive and declaratory relief from this court, (the students) are in a precarious legal situation where defendants’ actions jeopardize their student status,” according to the resistance, which also notes the students’ pursuit of “declaratory relief” — asking the court to clarify for the record their rights.

“Defendants’ assertion that the case is moot misstates the relief (the UI students) seek,” according to the resistance. “Premature dismissal will foreclose (the students) from ever obtaining a vital remedy: declaratory relief.”

And it will leave the door open for the government to effectuate the same result via an alternate course of action.

“The fact that defendants ceased their behavior only in response to a court order casts serious doubt on their intentions to refrain from the challenged conduct in the future,” according to the students’ resistance.

Vanessa Miller covers higher education for The Gazette.

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