In a closely watched decision that delivers a mixed outcome for immigrant advocacy groups,
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 by
Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton
in *
Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts et al. v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services et al., No. 1:26-cv-13038
*, represents one of the first substantive judicial examinations of the immigration provisions within the sweeping reconciliation legislation signed by President Trump in July 2025. The decision has immediate and far-reaching consequences for hundreds of thousands of TPS holders and asylum seekers nationwide.
Background: The Challenged Policies
The case was brought by membership-based organizations challenging several recent USCIS policies. Plaintiffs challenged a July 22, 2025 Federal Register Notice, a March 2026 update to USCIS's website, and portions of the April 29, 2026 interim final rule.
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.
At the heart of the dispute is the OBBBA's statutory one-year cap on TPS-based EADs — a dramatic departure from prior practice.
TPS holders are entitled to apply for employment authorization documents, and before the challenged policies, EADs were valid for the duration of the TPS status itself.
Under the new statutory framework, however,
work authorization is limited to the shorter of 365 days from the EAD's "Card Expires" date or the TPS designation end date for the country.
The litigation arose after
USCIS interpreted various interacting policies and legal authorities — including 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 pre-October 30, 2025 filers — to curtail employment authorization for TPS beneficiaries from El Salvador, Ukraine, and Sudan.
The Court's Reasoning on TPS EAD Cap
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.
In his written opinion, Judge Gorton concluded that USCIS "has simply confirmed the intent of the statute," as
reported by Bloomberg Law
.
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.
This was a central argument advanced by the plaintiffs, who contended that the retroactive shortening of extensions already granted violated established administrative law principles.
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 Conclusion
While the TPS EAD cap survived challenge, the court reached a starkly different conclusion on the Annual Asylum Fee provisions.
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, finding 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 the IFR provisions that would reject asylum applications 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 distinction drawn by the court is legally significant: while the one-year EAD cap itself flows directly from a congressional mandate that requires no additional rulemaking, the specific consequences for nonpayment of the AAF — including rejection of asylum applications and initiation of removal proceedings — were USCIS's own policy choices that went beyond what the statute required.
Impact on Prior Emergency Relief
The August 5 decision supersedes the court's temporary July 21 administrative stay
that had provided emergency relief to TPS holders.
That earlier order had stayed two USCIS policies that purported to apply the One Big Beautiful Bill Act by retroactively limiting TPS-related employment authorization periods to one year, even for TPS holders who applied before passage of the OBBBA.
The temporary relief preserving previously extended TPS EAD expiration dates is no longer in effect, although the litigation remains pending on the merits.
As a result, the government may proceed with its planned termination of employment authorization for TPS beneficiaries from El Salvador, Ukraine, and Sudan, which was originally set to occur on July 22 but was temporarily postponed by the court through August 5, 2026.
What This Means for TPS Holders and Employers
The practical implications of this ruling are significant and immediate:
- Shorter EAD validity periods:
- More frequent renewals and higher costs:
- I-9 compliance considerations:
- Asylum applicants retain some protection: The nationwide stay on AAF enforcement consequences means that, for now, USCIS cannot reject pending asylum applications or initiate removal proceedings solely for failure to pay the Annual Asylum Fee.
Litigation Continues
Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal
, signaling that this ruling will be challenged at the appellate level. The underlying merits of the case also remain unresolved — the August 5 decision addressed only the motion for a stay of agency action, not the ultimate legality of the challenged policies.
The case is part of a broader wave of litigation challenging various aspects of the OBBBA's immigration provisions.
The continued brief extensions for some TPS populations come in the wake of the Supreme Court's June 2026 decision allowing the Trump Administration to terminate TPS for Haiti and Syria, which is impacting ongoing litigation and DHS termination efforts for several other countries.
---
TPS holders, asylum applicants, and their employers should consult with experienced immigration counsel to understand how this ruling affects their specific situations. The legal landscape around TPS and asylum continues to shift rapidly, and compliance timelines may change with minimal notice.