In a split decision with significant consequences for thousands of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders and asylum seekers across the country,
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on August 5, 2026, denied plaintiffs' request to stay USCIS's implementation of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act's (H.R. 1) limits on TPS-based employment authorization documents (EADs), while granting limited relief related to the new Annual Asylum Fee (AAF)
.
The ruling in Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts et al. v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services et al.,
No. 1:26-cv-13038
, marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing legal battle over the immigration provisions embedded in the sweeping Republican tax and spending package signed into law in July 2025.
The TPS EAD Cap: Court Sides with the Government
At the heart of the dispute is the OBBBA's reduction of the maximum automatic extension for TPS-based EAD renewal applications.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act reduced the maximum automatic extension for certain timely filed EAD renewal applications from 540 days to one year.
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.
The court declined to block USCIS's implementation of the one-year cap on TPS-related Employment Authorization Documents. Plaintiffs argued that USCIS unlawfully shortened previously issued TPS work authorization extensions and improperly applied the policy to existing TPS beneficiaries.
However, Judge Nathaniel Gorton found that plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on those claims and concluded that USCIS was carrying out the requirements enacted by Congress through H.R. 1.
Specifically,
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 language that underscored deference to the legislative branch,
Judge Gorton wrote that by mandating that previously issued extensions may not last longer than one year from the date of a July 2025 Federal Register notice, USCIS "has simply confirmed the intent of the statute."
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. The court acknowledged that the new statutory framework could result in gaps in employment authorization, but held that the possibility of such gaps did not render the cap policy unlawful.
Asylum Fee Relief: A Different Outcome
While the TPS EAD cap survived judicial scrutiny, the court reached a markedly different conclusion regarding USCIS's enforcement 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.
Critically,
although the court temporarily blocked certain enforcement measures, it did not suspend the Annual Asylum Fee itself.
USCIS noted that the court's order "expressly allows USCIS to continue collecting the AAF." Therefore, any alien to whom USCIS sent or sends a notice regarding the AAF must pay the fee according to the instructions in that notice.
Background: From Emergency Stay to Final Order
The August 5 decision resolves questions left open by the court's earlier emergency intervention.
On July 21, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued an administrative stay temporarily preventing USCIS from implementing certain agency policies adopted to carry out portions of H.R. 1. The challenged policies would have retroactively affected the employment authorization of certain TPS beneficiaries and asylum applicants beginning July 22, 2026.
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 August 5 decision supersedes the court's temporary July 21 administrative stay.
The temporary relief preserving previously extended TPS EAD expiration dates is no longer in effect, although the litigation remains pending on the merits.
Immediate Impact and What Comes Next
The practical consequences of this decision are already being felt.
The court ruled that plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed in a lawsuit challenging the curtailment of TPS employment authorization for beneficiaries from El Salvador, Ukraine, and Sudan. The ruling means that the government may proceed with its planned termination of employment authorization for these beneficiaries, which was originally set to occur on July 22 but was temporarily postponed by the court through August 5, 2026.
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 — and cannot rely on the EAD extension combination to work past July 22, 2026. Employers should immediately identify potentially affected employees and determine whether reverification is required.
The litigation is far from over.
On Thursday, plaintiffs filed a notice that they will appeal Judge Gorton's order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
This appeal could result in a reinstatement of broader relief or, conversely, a further narrowing of protections for TPS holders and asylum seekers.
Practical Guidance for Affected Individuals and Employers
For TPS holders: Individuals from El Salvador, Sudan, and Ukraine who were relying on 540-day automatic EAD extensions should consult with an immigration attorney immediately to assess their work authorization status. Those with EADs bearing face-valid expiration dates extending beyond July 22, 2026 may continue to work until those dates.
For asylum applicants:
The decision means 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. Applicants who receive payment notices should comply with them rather than assume the obligation has been eliminated.
For employers:
Employers should continue to follow current USCIS guidance regarding TPS-based EAD automatic extensions and Form I-9 reverification.
Human Resources and I-9 compliance teams should review any pending reverification or separation decisions involving TPS beneficiaries and confirm employee-specific expiration dates before taking action.
This ruling arrives during a period of extraordinary volatility in TPS-related immigration policy. The decision underscores the tension between congressional authority to set immigration policy parameters and the administrative process requirements that constrain how agencies implement those policies. As the case moves to the First Circuit, stakeholders on all sides will be watching closely for the next development in this rapidly evolving area of law.
---
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have questions about how these developments may affect your immigration status or employment, please contact ClinchLaw to speak with one of our experienced immigration attorneys.