Bill · S.J.Res. 213· Senate(119-SJRES-213)
A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement of the Department of Homeland Security relating to "Establishing a Fixed Time Period of Admission and an Extension of Stay Procedure for Nonimmigrant Academic Students, Exchange Visitors, and Representatives of Foreign Information Media".
- Introduced
- 9/14/2026
- Last activity
- 9/17/2026 — Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 668.
- Sponsored by
- Richard Durbin
- Cosponsors
- - 15 - 0
- Introduced
- On Calendar
What this bill would do
This joint resolution expresses congressional disapproval of a specific rule submitted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement of the Department of Homeland Security. The rule that Congress is looking to block relates to establishing a fixed time period of admission and an extension of stay procedure for nonimmigrant academic students, exchange visitors, and representatives of foreign information media. By passing this resolution, Congress intends to ensure that the rule shall have no force or effect. The text shows the resolution was introduced in the Senate by Mr. Durbin and several other senators in September 2026. It was later discharged from committee by petition and placed on the Senate calendar.
Yes· 3 of 6
Would immigrants be better off under this?+4
The resolution invalidates an ICE rule that established stricter time limits and extension procedures for nonimmigrant students and visitors.
Would students be better off under this?+4
Nonimmigrant academic students benefit directly from the nullification of the fixed time period of admission rule.
Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this?+3
Many nonimmigrant academic students and exchange visitors are young adults who benefit from the removal of restrictive admission rules.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- The provided text does not contain any information about specific sections or provisions that provide positive outcomes or benefits for individuals or groups.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- The provided text does not contain any information about specific sections or provisions that create negative consequences or burdens for individuals or groups.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Good For Immigrants+4Good For Students+4Good For Young Adults+3
- Social Issues And Justice
- Improves Pathway To Citizenship+3
- Governance And Ideology
- Improves Government Transparency+2
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Improves Diplomatic Engagement+2
- 9/29/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/28/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/23/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/17/2026
- Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged, by petition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 802(c).
- Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 668.
- 9/16/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/15/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/14/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S4674)
- 11 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Richard BlumenthalDemocrat · Connecticut
Cory BookerDemocrat · New Jersey
Lisa Blunt RochesterDemocrat · Delaware
Kirsten GillibrandDemocrat · New York
Mazie HironoDemocrat · Hawaii
Martin HeinrichDemocrat · New Mexico
Angus KingIndependent · Maine
Timothy KaineDemocrat · Virginia
Edward MarkeyDemocrat · Massachusetts
Alex PadillaDemocrat · California
John ReedDemocrat · Rhode Island
Jeanne ShaheenDemocrat · New Hampshire
Chris Van HollenDemocrat · Maryland
Ron WydenDemocrat · Oregon
Peter WelchDemocrat · Vermont
Sheldon WhitehouseDemocrat · Rhode Island