A federal judge in Massachusetts has issued a split ruling on key immigration provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), allowing the government to enforce controversial limits on Temporary Protected Status (TPS) work permits while continuing to block the most punitive consequences of the new Annual Asylum Fee (AAF).
The Ruling
On August 5, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied plaintiffs' request to stay USCIS's implementation of the OBBBA's limits on TPS-based employment authorization documents (EADs), while granting limited relief related to the new Annual Asylum Fee.
The case,
Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts et al. v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services et al., No. 1:26-cv-13038
, represents one of the most significant legal challenges to the sweeping immigration law since it was signed by President Trump on July 4, 2025.
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.
TPS Work Permit Caps Stand
In what amounts to a significant setback for TPS advocates,
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 the agency was implementing Congress' statutory directive in H.R. 1.
The court declined to block USCIS's implementation of the one-year cap on TPS-related EADs. Plaintiffs had argued that USCIS unlawfully shortened previously issued TPS work authorization extensions and improperly applied the policy to existing TPS beneficiaries.
The court ruled that it was not improper for the government to have retroactively applied H.R. 1's one-year limit on EADs for TPS beneficiaries. Though the court cast doubt on some aspects of the government's interpretation of the TPS statute with respect to employment authorization, it determined that the plaintiffs had failed to establish that the government's application of H.R. 1's one-year limit rendered that policy unlawful.
This aspect of the ruling has immediate and practical consequences.
A federal district court has now declined to enjoin a government policy that curtailed the validity of TPS employment authorization for beneficiaries from El Salvador, Ukraine, and Sudan.
Employment authorization for TPS beneficiaries from these countries was due to expire on July 22, 2026, under recent government guidance interpreting the H.R. 1 legislation that limited TPS EADs to one year, various TPS termination actions, and the maximum 540-day EAD auto-extension applicable to EAD renewal applications filed prior to October 30, 2025.
USCIS is expected to issue instructions concerning the lapse of employment authorization for TPS beneficiaries from El Salvador, Ukraine, and Sudan.
Annual Asylum Fee Penalties Blocked
While the TPS ruling favored the government, the court drew a firm line on the consequences USCIS attached to nonpayment of the Annual Asylum Fee.
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.
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 determined that these measures affect substantive rights and therefore likely required notice-and-comment rulemaking before implementation. As a result, the court issued a stay preventing USCIS from enforcing those provisions while the case proceeds.
The OBBBA created a new Annual Asylum Fee of $100 per year for all asylum seekers with a pending Form I-589, whether the case is before USCIS (affirmative) or in Immigration Court (defensive).
Both the initial $100 asylum filing fee and the annual $100 fee are non-waivable under the OBBBA.
The court's ruling does not block USCIS from continuing to collect the fee itself — only from imposing the harshest penalties for nonpayment.
How the Ruling Narrows Earlier Relief
The August 5 decision supersedes the court's temporary July 21 administrative stay.
That earlier order, issued by
Federal Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton
, had been broader in scope —
concluding that an administrative stay was warranted because many TPS beneficiaries faced the imminent loss of work authorization beginning July 22, 2026, while asylum applicants faced rejection of applications and other potentially severe consequences before the court could fully consider the legality of the challenged policies.
As a result, 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.
What This Means for Affected Individuals
For TPS holders: The most immediate impact falls on TPS beneficiaries from El Salvador, Ukraine, and Sudan, whose EADs may now expire under the one-year cap framework imposed by H.R. 1.
The ruling allows USCIS to proceed with its planned termination of employment authorization for TPS beneficiaries from El Salvador, Ukraine, and Sudan that had been postponed by the court through August 5, 2026. The plaintiffs have filed their appeal with the First Circuit Court of Appeals and asked the First Circuit to allow employment authorization to continue pending appeal.
For asylum seekers: While the $100 Annual Asylum Fee itself remains in effect, USCIS cannot — for now — reject asylum applications, terminate work authorization, or initiate removal proceedings solely because an applicant has not paid the fee. This provides a critical buffer for the hundreds of thousands of asylum applicants navigating the new fee regime.
For employers: Companies employing TPS holders should immediately review their workforce and consult with immigration counsel regarding Form I-9 reverification obligations. The landscape is shifting rapidly and further guidance from USCIS is anticipated.
What Comes Next
The litigation remains ongoing, and additional rulings are expected.
The plaintiffs' appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals could result in further changes to the scope of relief. Meanwhile, the merits of the underlying claims have not yet been adjudicated, meaning the legal battle over the OBBBA's immigration provisions is far from over.
Given the rapidly evolving nature of this litigation, TPS holders, asylum seekers, and their employers should consult with an experienced immigration attorney to understand how these changes affect their specific circumstances and to prepare for possible further shifts in policy.
---
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have questions about how this ruling affects your immigration case, please contact ClinchLaw for a consultation.