On August 5, 2026, U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton issued a pivotal ruling in Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts et al. v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-13038, delivering a split decision that allows USCIS to move forward with the one-year cap on Temporary Protected Status (TPS) employment authorization documents (EADs) while continuing to block the government's enforcement of penalties for nonpayment of the Annual Asylum Fee (AAF).
The August 5 decision supersedes the court's temporary July 21 administrative stay.
The new ruling fundamentally reshapes the scope of relief available to the hundreds of thousands of TPS holders and asylum applicants affected by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act's (OBBBA) immigration provisions.
Background: The One Big Beautiful Bill Act and Its Immigration Impact
Trump's signature tax and spending law, passed by the Republican-led Congress in July 2025, for the first time imposed fees to apply for asylum and restricted employment authorization for people with Temporary Protected Status.
Among the Act's most consequential immigration provisions was a one-year cap on the validity of TPS-based EADs, replacing the previous framework that allowed extensions of up to 540 days.
The law also created a new $100 non-waivable fee to apply for asylum protections, as well as a $100 annual fee for each year the asylum application is pending.
Under the OBBBA, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is required to increase its fees every year to keep up with inflation, including increasing the annual fee for pending asylum applications from $100 to $102, effective February 1, 2026.
The July 21 Administrative Stay
The litigation began when
the lawsuit, filed by Democracy Forward on behalf of the Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts, the National TPS Alliance, the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP), the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and 32BJ SEIU, challenged three USCIS policies.
The order came one day before the challenged policies were set to take effect on July 22.
In that initial ruling,
Judge Gorton did not block collection of the asylum fee itself, but temporarily blocked certain consequences of nonpayment, including the rejection of asylum applications, termination of work permits, and initiation of removal proceedings.
The court temporarily halted the application of H.R. 1 provisions related to TPS-based Employment Authorization Document expiration deadlines. As a result, TPS-based EADs that had previously received extensions maintained their prior expiration dates while the litigation remained pending.
The August 5 Ruling: TPS EAD Cap Stands
The plaintiffs challenged several USCIS actions implementing H.R. 1, including the July 2025 Federal Register notice establishing the one-year TPS EAD cap, the March 2026 USCIS website update applying that cap to previously issued 540-day automatic extensions, and related provisions of the April 2026 Interim Final Rule.
In his August 5 decision,
the court rejected each of the plaintiffs' challenges to the TPS EAD cap. It held that USCIS was not required to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking because the agency was implementing Congress' statutory directive in H.R. 1.
Critically,
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.
Finally, the court acknowledged that the new statutory framework could result in gaps in employment authorization, but it held that the possibility of such gaps did not render the Cap Policy unlawful.
Asylum Fee Enforcement Blocked
The court reached a different conclusion regarding USCIS' implementation of penalties tied to the Annual Asylum Fee. Judge Gorton found that plaintiffs were likely to succeed in challenging portions of the April 2026 Interim Final Rule that would reject asylum applications for failure to pay the AAF and trigger other adverse consequences based on nonpayment.
The court granted a nationwide stay under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) with respect to the April 2026 IFR provisions authorizing USCIS to reject pending asylum applications and initiate removal proceedings for failure to pay the Annual Asylum Fee. The court found those consequences were not required by H.R. 1 and likely violated the APA's notice-and-comment requirements.
It is important to note that this ruling does not eliminate the Annual Asylum Fee itself. USCIS may still collect the fee — it simply cannot reject asylum applications or begin removal proceedings based solely on nonpayment while the case proceeds.
Immediate Impact on TPS Holders
The U.S. District Court issued an order allowing the OBBBA provisions restricting TPS EAD duration to take effect. As a result, TPS EAD holders from Ukraine, El Salvador, and Sudan must either have a date-valid EAD (meaning the EAD has an expiration date after July 22, 2026 on the face of the card) or must be reverified immediately. They cannot rely on the EAD extension combination (EAD plus Form I-797C showing timely renewal filing) to work past July 22, 2026.
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.
While the administration has been terminating TPS for other countries, it extended TPS for people from those three nations in January. TPS remains valid for El Salvador through September 9 and for Sudan and Ukraine through October 19.
Practical Takeaways
For TPS holders: The one-year EAD cap is now in effect. Workers whose EADs were extended under the prior 540-day automatic extension framework should verify their current authorization status and prepare for shorter renewal cycles.
Employers should immediately identify potentially affected employees and determine whether reverification is required.
For asylum applicants:
The order allows the government to continue collecting the annual asylum fee. Do not ignore a payment notice or assume the obligation was eliminated. While the stay remains in effect, USCIS may not reject an asylum application solely because the annual fee was not paid.
For employers: Given the rapidly evolving legal landscape, companies with TPS-based workers should consult with immigration counsel to ensure I-9 compliance and avoid premature adverse employment actions.
What Comes Next
The litigation remains ongoing, and additional rulings are expected.
The August 5 ruling resolves the immediate procedural question of whether the July 21 administrative stay should be extended, but the underlying merits of the case have not yet been decided. Advocacy organizations and affected communities will be watching closely for further developments as the case progresses through the federal courts.
The case also sits within a broader judicial landscape that includes the U.S. Supreme Court's June 2026 decision in Mullin v. Doe, which allowed TPS terminations for Haitian and Syrian nationals, signaling the current Court's posture toward TPS-related claims.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Individuals affected by these policies should consult with a qualified immigration attorney.