Court Rejects Stay on Immigration Rule Change

By Jessica Turner 07/08/2026 4 min read 18 views

A US District Court has declined to stay the implementation of limits on Temporary Protected Status (TPS)-based employment authorization documents (EADs) under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1). The court made this decision on August 5, 2026, in the case of Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts et al. v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services et al., No. 1:26-cv-13038.

The plaintiffs had challenged several actions taken by US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to implement H.R. 1, including a July 2025 Federal Register notice and a March 2026 USCIS website update. These updates were key in establishing and applying the one-year TPS EAD cap, which has significant implications for TPS beneficiaries from El Salvador, Sudan, and Ukraine.

TPS EAD Cap Challenges Rejected

The court rejected each of the plaintiffs’ challenges to the TPS EAD cap, holding that USCIS was not required to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking because it was implementing a statutory directive from Congress. This decision shows the importance of congressional directives in shaping immigration policies and the role of USCIS in implementing these directives.

The court also concluded that applying the one-year cap to previously issued 540-day automatic EAD extensions for TPS beneficiaries from El Salvador, Sudan, and Ukraine was not impermissibly retroactive. This conclusion is based on the understanding that the new policy does not unfairly penalize individuals who had already been granted extensions under the previous rules.

Additionally, the court acknowledged that the new statutory framework could result in gaps in employment authorization but held that this possibility did not render the Cap Policy unlawful. The court noted that USCIS has the authority to issue one-year automatic extensions to mitigate such gaps, ensuring that TPS beneficiaries can maintain continuous employment authorization.

The court’s decision also highlights the potential for independent liability if USCIS fails to comply with the TPS statute’s requirements. Specifically, if USCIS does not ensure that employment authorization remains effective throughout the TPS designation, it may face separate legal consequences. This aspect of the decision emphasizes the need for USCIS to carefully manage the implementation of the Cap Policy to avoid legal and administrative issues.

Court Stays Portions of Annual Asylum Fee Rule

The court granted a nationwide stay under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) with respect to provisions authorizing USCIS to reject pending asylum applications and initiate removal proceedings for failure to pay the Annual Asylum Fee. The court found that these consequences were not required by H.R. 1 and likely violated the APA’s notice-and-comment requirements, indicating a potential procedural flaw in the implementation of the Annual Asylum Fee rule.

The stay of the Annual Asylum Fee rule provisions has significant implications for asylum applicants. By preventing USCIS from rejecting pending asylum applications or initiating removal proceedings solely due to non-payment of the fee, the court’s decision provides temporary relief to individuals who may be facing financial or administrative barriers to paying the fee.

As a result of the August 5 decision, employers should continue to follow current USCIS guidance regarding TPS-based EAD automatic extensions and Form I-9 reverification. The temporary relief preserving previously extended TPS EAD expiration dates is no longer in effect, although the litigation remains pending on the merits. Employers must therefore stay informed about the latest developments in TPS policies and ensure compliance with all relevant regulations to avoid potential legal issues.

The court’s handling of the case reflects the complex interplay between congressional legislation, administrative regulations, and judicial oversight in the area of immigration law. The decision to reject the stay on the TPS EAD cap while granting a stay on portions of the Annual Asylum Fee rule demonstrates the court’s careful consideration of the legal and administrative implications of each policy.

In similar situations, courts have often grappled with the balance between implementing congressional directives and protecting the rights of affected individuals, and this case is no exception, with the court seeking to handle the complexities of the TPS statute and the APA. The ongoing litigation shows the dynamic nature of immigration policy and the importance of judicial review in ensuring that administrative actions align with statutory requirements and constitutional principles.

For now, the decision means that USCIS will continue to implement the limits on TPS-based EADs as outlined in H.R. 1, while the court’s stay of the Annual Asylum Fee rule provisions will prevent certain consequences for asylum applicants who fail to pay the fee. As the litigation progresses, it will be key for all parties involved, including employers, TPS beneficiaries, and asylum applicants, to monitor developments closely and adjust their strategies accordingly to comply with the evolving legal setting.

The August 5 decision and its aftermath also highlight the need for clear and consistent communication from USCIS regarding policy changes and their implementation. This is particularly important for individuals and employers who must handle the complexities of immigration law and ensure compliance with often-changing regulations. By providing timely and detailed guidance, USCIS can help mitigate confusion and facilitate a smoother transition to new policies, ultimately supporting the effective administration of immigration laws.