In a ruling that arrived just hours before thousands of immigrants were set to lose their ability to work legally in the United States, a federal judge in Massachusetts has temporarily blocked key USCIS policies implementing immigration provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — delivering an emergency reprieve for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders and asylum seekers nationwide.
The Ruling
U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton issued the five-page order on July 21, 2026, in Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts et al. v. USCIS et al., a lawsuit challenging USCIS policies implementing portions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, President Donald Trump's tax and spending law passed by Congress in July 2025.
Judge Gorton concluded 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.
In his order, the judge wrote that "the consequences faced by plaintiffs are potentially severe."
USCIS confirmed it will comply with the court's order pending further judicial proceedings.
However,
the Department of Homeland Security stated that it "vehemently disagrees with this order and is working with Department of Justice to determine next steps."
What the Court Blocked
The court's order stays portions of a July 2025 Federal Register Notice, a March 2026 website update, and an April 2026 Interim Final Rule across four specific areas: the application of H.R. 1 to TPS-based Employment Authorization Document (EAD) expiration deadlines; rejection of asylum applications for failure to pay the annual asylum fee (AAF); termination of work authorization as a result of failing to pay the AAF; and initiation of removal procedures based solely on an individual's failure to pay the AAF.
As a result, TPS-based EADs that had previously received extensions will maintain their prior expiration dates while the litigation remains pending.
Critically,
the court's order expressly allows USCIS to continue collecting the AAF, and any individual to whom USCIS sent or sends a notice regarding the AAF must pay the fee according to the instructions in that notice.
All other fees and requirements of H.R. 1 continue in effect.
The Broader Legal Landscape
The lawsuit was 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.
The plaintiffs argue that USCIS implemented these new rules retroactively without public notice or a comment period, thus violating the Administrative Procedure Act.
The lawsuit challenges USCIS's decision to reject pending asylum applications and terminate work permits when applicants fail to pay a newly created annual asylum fee — without providing sufficient notice. The challenged policies threaten not only the individuals directly affected but also the employers, coworkers, and local economies that rely on their contributions.
This ruling comes amid a rapidly shifting legal landscape for TPS.
The Supreme Court's June 25, 2026, decision in Mullin v. Doe allows the Trump administration to terminate TPS for approximately 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians. More broadly, the decision makes it much harder for courts to block future TPS terminations, giving the administration authority to move forward with ending TPS designations for additional countries.
Understanding the Fees at Issue
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act fundamentally restructured immigration fees.
The law created a minimum, non-waivable $100 asylum application fee, and an additional $100 fee for each year that a person's asylum application remains pending.
For TPS, the law imposes fees of at least $500 to register, $550 for initial employment authorization, and $275 for renewal.
An asylum seeker who requests at least one work permit and waits five years to obtain a decision on their asylum claim in the heavily backlogged immigration system is estimated to pay at least $1,150 in filing fees under H.R. 1, compared to $0 before the bill's enactment.
USCIS stated it would only provide employment authorization to TPS holders for up to one year, or the duration of the temporary status, whichever was shorter. The agency retroactively applied the rule to people who filed for work permit renewals before the enactment of the bill but who received their renewals after the rule update.
Practical Implications for Affected Individuals
For TPS holders:
The court's order means immigrants' work permits will keep their prior expiration dates.
The order also prevented the revocation of work authorizations for TPS holders from El Salvador, Sudan, and Ukraine, who would have lost their permits starting July 22.
TPS beneficiaries whose EADs were set to be retroactively shortened should continue using their existing documents with their original expiration dates.
For asylum seekers:
While the judge didn't block the collection of the asylum fee, he did temporarily block the consequences of not paying it, including having an individual's application rejected or work permit terminated.
Asylum seekers who have received payment notices must still pay the annual asylum fee as directed — failure to do so could have consequences once the stay is lifted.
For employers: Businesses employing TPS holders and asylum seekers should take note that their workers' authorization remains valid under the court's order. Employers should document the court order in their I-9 records and continue monitoring USCIS announcements for further updates.
What Happens Next
The administrative stay will remain in effect until the court rules on the plaintiffs' motion for a stay under the Administrative Procedure Act, which the court indicated will occur no later than August 5, 2026.
That upcoming ruling will determine whether protections continue on a longer-term basis while the underlying lawsuit proceeds.
Democracy Forward president Skye Perryman stated that "this decision protects thousands of asylum seekers and TPS holders from immediate and irreparable harm while this case moves forward."
For Salvadoran TPS holders specifically, additional uncertainty looms: El Salvador's current TPS designation is set to expire on September 9, and DHS is expected to announce in the coming weeks whether it will extend or terminate protections for more than 170,000 Salvadoran TPS holders.
ClinchLaw Takeaway
This ruling represents a meaningful — but temporary — safeguard for TPS holders and asylum seekers facing the most immediate consequences of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act's immigration provisions. The August 5 deadline is the critical next date to watch. In the meantime, affected individuals should continue complying with all fee requirements, maintain their immigration documents, and consult with an immigration attorney to understand how these rapidly evolving legal developments affect their specific situation.
ClinchLaw will continue to monitor this case and provide updates as the litigation progresses.