In a last-minute intervention with sweeping consequences for immigrant communities,
U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton issued a five-page order 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.
The order came just one day before the challenged policies were set to take effect on July 22.
In the order, Judge Gorton wrote that "the consequences faced by plaintiffs are potentially severe."
What the Court Blocked
The court temporarily stayed portions of USCIS policies contained in a July 2025 Federal Register notice, a March 2026 USCIS website update, and an April 2026 Interim Final Rule.
Specifically, the order impacts four key areas:
1. TPS Employment Authorization Documents (EADs):
The court temporarily blocks the retroactive application of EAD expiration deadlines for previously extended TPS-related EADs.
USCIS regulations had capped the duration of employment authorization documents at one year for TPS holders, including those previously extended by 540 days based on automatic grace periods rescinded by the Trump administration. The agency also mandated that asylum seekers pay a new $100 annual fee to have claims considered.
2. Asylum Application Rejections:
The order blocks the rejection of asylum applications for failure to pay the annual asylum application fee.
3. Work Authorization Terminations:
It prevents the termination of work authorization based on failure to pay the annual asylum application fee.
4. Removal Proceedings:
USCIS further confirmed that the court blocked the initiation of removal proceedings based solely on an individual's failure to pay the Annual Asylum Fee.
Notably,
while the court temporarily halted several enforcement-related provisions, the order specifically allows USCIS to continue collecting the Annual Asylum Fee. Individuals who have received, or later receive, a USCIS notice regarding the fee must continue following the instructions and pay the fee as directed.
Who Filed the Lawsuit
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, challenges three USCIS policies.
The plaintiffs argue that USCIS adopted the policies without the notice-and-comment rulemaking the Administrative Procedure Act requires, and that the policies exceed the agency's statutory authority.
Who Is Affected
The order prevents thousands from El Salvador, Sudan, and Ukraine from losing work authorization while the lawsuit proceeds.
USCIS had planned to terminate the validity of the work permits, even though TPS for El Salvador remains in effect through September 9, 2026, and for Sudan and Ukraine, TPS remains in effect through October 19, 2026.
The ruling also provides relief for between 5,000 and 10,000 Venezuelans who renewed their TPS before February 5, 2025, protecting them from losing their work permits.
For asylum seekers,
Adelys Ferro, executive director of the Venezuelan American Caucus, emphasized that "the most crucial aspect of this decision is its impact on asylum seekers with pending cases who were at risk of losing their work permits or facing expedited deportation for not paying the new $100 annual fee."
Reactions and Statements
"This decision protects thousands of asylum seekers and TPS holders from immediate and irreparable harm while this case moves forward," said Democracy Forward president Skye Perryman. "Without this relief, families who have followed the law and relied on longstanding humanitarian protections faced the sudden loss of their employment authorization."
USCIS stated that it will comply with the court's order pending further judicial proceedings.
USCIS emphasized that all other fees and requirements established under H.R. 1 remain in effect unless otherwise modified by future court action.
What Happens Next
The stay will remain in effect until the court rules on the plaintiffs' pending motion for a stay of agency action, which the court indicated it will do no later than August 5, 2026.
At that point, Judge Gorton will decide whether to convert the temporary administrative stay into longer-term relief while the case proceeds on the merits.
Broader Context
This ruling arrives amid a rapidly shifting legal landscape for TPS holders nationwide.
The Trump administration has already terminated TPS for 10 countries, so far affecting more than a million people. Four countries still have active TPS designations, but they are set to expire later this year: Lebanon, El Salvador, Sudan, and Ukraine.
In June 2026, the Supreme Court cleared the way for the deportation of hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian nationals who have been living safely and legally in the United States under TPS.
However, the current order does not disturb the TPS terminations the Supreme Court allowed to proceed for Haiti and Syria. Those terminations, and the EAD expiration dates tied to them, are from a separate line of litigation.
Practical Implications for TPS Holders, Asylum Seekers, and Employers
For affected TPS beneficiaries,
many who previously qualified for a 540-day automatic EAD extension may continue to rely on those longer extensions instead of the shortened July 22 expiration date announced by USCIS.
For employers, the guidance is clear but cautious.
Employers should avoid taking adverse employment action based solely on the July 22, 2026, employment authorization expiration dates established under the challenged USCIS policies while the administrative stay remains in effect. Employers should continue to monitor USCIS guidance and consult counsel regarding affected employees because the stay is temporary and may be modified or dissolved following further court proceedings.
For asylum seekers who have received fee notices, the situation requires careful attention: while the penalties for non-payment are stayed,
individuals who have received a USCIS notice regarding the Annual Asylum Fee must continue following the instructions in that notice and pay the fee as directed.
---
The bottom line: This emergency stay provides critical temporary relief, but it is just that — temporary. TPS holders, asylum seekers, and their employers should closely monitor developments in Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts v. USCIS as the August 5 deadline for a further ruling approaches. Individuals affected by these policies should consult with an experienced immigration attorney to understand how the court's order applies to their specific circumstances.
ClinchLaw is monitoring this case closely and will provide updates as new developments occur.