In a fast-moving case with major consequences for hundreds of thousands of immigrants, a federal court in Boston has intervened to partially block U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) from enforcing some of the most consequential immigration provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — the sweeping tax-and-spending legislation signed into law by President Trump on July 4, 2025.
The Emergency Stay: What the Court Blocked
U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton issued the 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.
The court granted, in part, plaintiffs' emergency motion for an administrative stay of certain USCIS policies based on H.R. 1, the Reconciliation Act of 2025 — known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The plaintiffs are membership-based organizations representing individuals holding Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and pending asylum applicants.
The court's July 21 order stayed four specific agency actions:
-
Retroactive application of EAD expiration deadlines, meaning that any EAD previously extended shall maintain its prior expiration date; rejection of asylum applications for failure to pay the annual asylum application fee; termination of work authorization of those who have failed to pay the annual asylum application fee; and initiation of removal procedures against those who have failed to pay the annual asylum application fee.
Critically, the stay was partial.
The government may continue to charge the Annual Asylum Fee (AAF) and need not abide by the previous 30-day deadline to review asylum applicants' initial employment-authorization applications.
The Lawsuit and the Plaintiffs
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 case challenges three USCIS policies: a new rule allowing the agency to reject asylum applications and terminate work permits when applicants fail to pay the newly created fee without adequate notice or an opportunity to appeal; the April 2026 interim final rule removing the longstanding regulatory requirement that USCIS adjudicate initial asylum work authorization applications within 30 days; and the retroactive application of the new rules to TPS holders from El Salvador, Sudan, and Ukraine.
Plaintiffs argue the policies were adopted without required public notice-and-comment rulemaking in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and exceed the agency's statutory authority.
Why the Court Acted: Imminent Harm
The timing of the emergency motion was not coincidental.
The ruling came the day before thousands of TPS holders faced the imminent loss of their employment authorization under USCIS policies implementing portions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Without emergency intervention, many TPS holders would have been unable to work beginning July 22, and asylum seekers faced rejection of their asylum applications and immediate termination of their work authorization.
The order mainly affects TPS holders from Ukraine, El Salvador, and Sudan.
Judge Gorton characterized the administrative stay as reflecting "the potentially severe consequences faced by plaintiffs," rather than a consideration of the merits.
The Annual Asylum Fee: Context
At the heart of one set of challenges is the Annual Asylum Fee, a new recurring charge created by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
The amount of the annual asylum fee is $102 for each calendar year an asylum application has been pending.
Failure to pay the annual fee within 30 days of notification can lead to a rejection of the pending asylum application, and for applicants without underlying legal statuses, removal from the United States.
The fee is non-waivable — unlike many other immigration fees, there is no poverty-based or other waiver available.
USCIS Response
USCIS stated it will comply with the court's order pending further judicial proceedings.
All other provisions and fees established under H.R. 1 remain in effect unless modified by future court orders. The ruling does not eliminate the Annual Asylum Fee or overturn the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Instead, it temporarily prevents USCIS from imposing some of the law's most significant consequences while the court considers whether those policies are lawful.
August 5 Ruling and Appeal to the First Circuit
The July 21 administrative stay was always temporary, with Judge Gorton indicating he would issue a follow-up ruling by August 5, 2026. That ruling has now been issued — and it was a mixed outcome for plaintiffs.
A federal judge in Boston ruled the Trump administration can impose new limits on employment authorization for certain immigrants as part of the implementation of the 2025 law. The decision means USCIS can shorten the duration of work permits for TPS recipients to one year, a policy that will make many TPS holders from countries such as Ukraine, El Salvador, and Sudan no longer eligible to work as soon as this week. Plaintiffs challenging the policy haven't shown they're likely to succeed in proving a cap on work permits — or its retroactive application to TPS holders — is unlawful, Judge Gorton held.
However, he granted a request to temporarily block penalties for failure to pay a new annual asylum fee.
Plaintiffs have filed a notice that they will appeal Gorton's order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
What This Means for Affected Immigrants
The practical implications of these developments remain fluid, but several key takeaways emerge for TPS holders and asylum applicants:
For TPS holders: The August 5 ruling represents a significant setback. While the July 21 stay preserved prior EAD expiration dates, the new ruling allows USCIS to move forward with shortening work permits for TPS recipients to one year. TPS holders from Ukraine, El Salvador, and Sudan should verify their EAD expiration dates immediately and prepare for potential loss of work authorization.
For asylum applicants: The court's continued block on penalties for nonpayment of the Annual Asylum Fee provides ongoing protection.
Applications cannot currently be rejected solely for nonpayment of the Annual Asylum Fee, and employment authorization cannot be revoked on that basis alone.
However, the fee itself remains in effect, and applicants should continue to pay it where possible to avoid future complications.
For employers: Companies employing TPS holders or asylum-based EAD holders should closely monitor USCIS updates.
Don't assume anything is settled. What's true today may not be true in ten days.
Looking Ahead
With the appeal now heading to the First Circuit, this litigation is far from over. The appellate court's decision could reshape the landscape again — either reinstating broader protections or affirming the government's authority to implement the new provisions retroactively. Given the pace of developments, affected individuals should consult with an experienced immigration attorney and monitor the USCIS newsroom for real-time updates.
This article reflects information available as of August 7, 2026. Given the rapidly evolving nature of this litigation, readers should verify current policy guidance directly through USCIS or consult with qualified legal counsel.