Takeaways

  • Massachusetts employers must provide written notice to all employees within 48 hours of receiving an ICE Notice of Inspection or request to review I-9 forms and other employment records, unless federal law requires otherwise.
  • The requirement went into effect on 08.05.26, as part of Massachusetts’ PROTECT Act of 2026, with no phase-in period.
  • Employers should review and update inspection-response protocols to ensure they can meet the new notification obligation while continuing to comply with federal immigration law.

Massachusetts’ employers have a new state-law compliance obligation when federal immigration enforcement actions involve workplace records. As part of the PROTECT Act of 2026, signed by Gov. Maura Healey on Aug. 5, 2026, the Commonwealth enacted a provision requiring employers to notify employees when they receive an ICE Notice of Inspection or other request to review I-9 employment eligibility verification forms or employment records.

Employers must provide written notice to all employees within 48 hours of being served with an ICE inspection notice or document request, regardless of whether any particular employee’s records are subject to review. The 48-hour period begins when the employer is formally served, not when it first learns that an inspection may be forthcoming.

The law intends to provide workers with advance notice so they can understand their rights, consult counsel, and prepare for potential immigration enforcement activity. The Act does not prescribe a specific form, content requirement, or delivery method for the notice, leaving employers discretion to establish their own communication procedures.

Beyond the employee-notification requirement, the PROTECT Act includes broader immigration-related measures, including:

  • Restrictions on immigration enforcement activity at schools, child-care centers, hospitals and medical facilities, and courthouse grounds;
  • Limits on state and local law enforcement involvement in civil immigration enforcement;
  • New state-law remedies related to alleged constitutional violations;
  • Enhanced rights and notifications for immigration detainees; and
  • Creation of an immigration commission to study and make recommendations on immigration issues in Massachusetts.

What Employers Should Know

The Act does not limit an employer’s ability to cooperate with ICE or comply with federal immigration law. Instead, it imposes a parallel state-law obligation requiring timely notification of the workforce when an inspection is initiated. Noncompliance carries potential penalties of $200 to $500, although the precise enforcement framework and penalty mechanics are still taking shape.

Employers should ensure that ICE communications are immediately routed to the appropriate HR and legal contacts and that the precise date and time of receipt are documented. Before issuing employee notices, counsel should assess whether any federal confidentiality restriction limits disclosure. Absent such a restriction, employers must provide notice within the required timeframe and preserve records demonstrating timely compliance.

Because the statute is silent regarding delivery methods and proof of receipt, maintaining an audit trail of notification efforts is a prudent risk-management measure. The Massachusetts requirement may differ from procedures used elsewhere and complicate multi-state employers’ compliance efforts.

As a practical matter, employers should maintain:

  1. A tested response protocol for ICE Notices of Inspection developed with immigration and employment counsel; and
  2. Clearly defined procedures addressing internal notifications, facility access, record preservation, and escalation steps.

Integrating these into existing compliance processes now will place employers in the strongest position to respond quickly and meet the Act’s 48-hour deadline when an inspection notice arrives.

Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney with any questions.

Takeaways

  • The State Department is pausing immigrant visa interview appointments while consular officers receive updated public-charge training. The agency has not publicly announced the duration or precise scope of this pause.
  • The pause follows an August 21 federal court decision vacating the State Department’s separate suspension of immigrant visa issuance to nationals of 75 countries.
  • Employers should monitor affected employees’ appointments and account for potential delays when planning start dates, relocation, or international travel.

The State Department has paused immigrant visa interview appointments at U.S. embassies and consulates to accommodate a global training initiative for consular officers. A State Department spokesperson stated that visa appointments would be adjusted to facilitate training on updated public-charge guidance. The agency has not publicly indicated the duration of the pause or whether all consular posts and immigrant visa applicants will be affected in the same manner.

Court Vacated Earlier 75-Country Immigrant Visa Suspension

The pause follows the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York’s Aug. 21, 2026, decision in Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. v. Rubio, No. 26-CV-00858. The court vacated a State Department policy, which went into effect Jan. 21, that suspended immigrant visa issuance to nationals of 75 countries.

Under that policy, consular officers were directed to refuse immigrant visas under Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) based solely on an applicant’s nationality when no other ground of ineligibility applied, even when an individualized assessment did not support a public-charge finding.

The court held that the policy violated the INA’s prohibition against nationality-based discrimination in immigrant visa issuance, conflicted with the statutory and regulatory framework governing visa refusals, and exceeded the secretary’s authority. The court vacated the policy and refusals that were based solely on it. Refusals supported by an independent ground of ineligibility were not vacated.

USCIS Changes Adjustment of Status Adjudications

Separately, DHS rescinded its 2022 public-charge regulations, effective Sept. 18, 2026. In subsequent guidance, USCIS confirmed that officers will evaluate adjustment-of-status applicants subject to public-charge review.

USCIS officers will consider the following five statutory factors, along with other relevant information:

  1. Age;
  2. Health;
  3. Family status;
  4. Assets, resources, and financial status; and
  5. Education and skills

For benefit requests received on or after Sept. 18, 2026, officers may consider any means-tested public benefit. The guidance applies to covered Forms I-485 postmarked or electronically submitted on or after that date.

Practical Implications

While USCIS adjudicates adjustment-of-status applications within the United States, the State Department administers immigrant visa processing abroad. Both developments reflect increased public-charge review across permanent residence pathways.

Applicants abroad should monitor communications from the applicable consular post and confirm appointment status before making travel arrangements.

For employers sponsoring workers through immigrant visa consular processing, appointment changes may affect anticipated visa issuance, relocation, and employment start dates. Employers should maintain flexibility and consult immigration counsel regarding time-sensitive cases.

Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney with any questions.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is expected to publish a proposed rule on Aug. 25, 2026, in the Federal Register that would impose a new $103,265 fee on all cap subject H-1B visa petitions. This new proposal would be in addition to existing H-1B filing fees. Employers who rely on the H-1B program to hire foreign workers in specialty occupations could be significantly impacted if the proposal is finalized.

How This Differs from Previous $100,000 Fee

A $100,000 fee was previously imposed through executive order in 2025. That fee applied only to H-1B workers seeking H-1B status through consular processing abroad. It did not apply to individuals who changed to H-1B status while already in the United States. A federal court struck down that fee in June 2026, and the court decision is being appealed.

The new proposed rule is legally distinct from that executive order. DHS is pursuing a fee structure through formal rulemaking, which relies on different legal authority.

Who Would Be Affected?

The new proposed fee would apply to H-1B petitions subject to the annual statutory cap, including petitions filed under both the regular cap (currently set at 65,000 visas) and the advanced-degree exemption (an additional 20,000 visas). It would be assessed in addition to existing H-1B filing fees and would apply regardless of whether the beneficiary is outside the United States or is already in the United States and seeking a change of status, such as an F-1 student changing to H-1B status.

The proposed fee would not apply to cap-exempt H-1B petitions, filed by or on behalf of employers not subject to the annual numerical cap. Employers that commonly qualify for cap-exempt H-1B filings include:

  • Universities and institutions of higher education
  • Nonprofit research organizations
  • Government research entities
  • Nonprofit entities affiliated with or related to institutions of higher education

These employers would continue to file cap-exempt H-1B petitions without the additional proposed fee.

What Is the Fee’s Purpose?

DHS states that the proposed fee is intended to help recover the costs of administering the lawful immigration system. The revenue would cover costs including adjudication of immigration benefits, fraud detection and national security vetting, systems modernization, records and fee collection operations, immigration court operations, consular visa processing, labor standards enforcement, and interagency coordination. DHS estimates these activities cost approximately $8.8 billion annually.

What It Would Mean for Employers

If finalized as proposed, the new rule would substantially increase the cost of sponsoring cap-subject H-1B workers by adding a $103,265 fee to each covered petition. Employers that rely on the H-1B program may need to account for higher immigration costs in their budgets and reassess how the added expense could affect hiring plans, sponsorship decisions, and recruitment for roles requiring specialized skills or advanced degrees.

What Happens Next?

This is a proposed rule, which means the fee is not yet in effect. Before DHS can finalize the rule, it must provide the public with a 30-day comment period following publication in the Federal Register. During this comment period, employers, industry groups, and other interested parties may submit feedback on the proposal.

Jackson Lewis’ immigration team is closely monitoring this proposed rule and the ongoing litigation surrounding prior fee measures. We will provide updates as developments occur.

On Sept. 18, 2026, USCIS will publish a revised edition of Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, the form used to apply for a green card through adjustment of status. The revised form aligns with the recently announced Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility Final Rule and will immediately replace the current 01/20/25 edition without any grace period for the transition.

Employers and sponsors with pending or upcoming I-485 filings should review the changes below carefully.

What’s Changing?

The Public Charge Final Rule updates how USCIS determines whether an applicant is likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, a ground of inadmissibility that can result in denial of a green card. The revised Form I-485 (edition date: 09/18/26) incorporates new questions and documentation requirements to reflect these changes.

For a detailed overview of the rule, visit the USCIS Public Charge page.

Key Filing Deadlines and Requirements

Here is what you need to know:

  • Before Sept. 18, 2026: USCIS will only accept the current edition of Form I-485 (edition date: 01/20/25).
  • On or after Sept. 18, 2026: USCIS will only accept the new 09/18/26 edition. The old 01/20/25 edition will be rejected if it is postmarked or electronically submitted on or after Sept. 18, 2026.

In other words, there is a hard cutoff and applications filed with the wrong edition on or after Sept. 18 will not be accepted, regardless of when they were prepared.

Where Can I Find the New Form?

USCIS is providing a preview of the revised Form I-485 and its instructions ahead of the Sept. 18 effective date. The preview is available in the Special Instructions section of the Form I-485 webpage on the USCIS website.

What Should You Do Now?

  • Filing before Sept. 18, 2026? Ensure the application uses the current 01/20/25 edition and is postmarked or submitted before Sept. 18.
  • Filing on or after Sept. 18, 2026? Review the preview version of the new form now so your team is prepared to use the 09/18/26 edition when it takes effect.
  • Coordinate with counsel. The changes related to the Public Charge Rule may affect the supporting documentation required for your employees’ filings. Our team can help you understand how these changes apply and ensure each application is complete and filed with the correct edition.

Questions? We’re here to help.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are monitoring implementation of the revised Form I-485 and Public Charge Final Rule. If you have questions about the revised Form I-485, the Public Charge Final Rule, or any pending or upcoming adjustment of status filings, please don’t hesitate to reach out to our team. We are here to help you navigate these changes and keep your immigration matters on track.

Takeaways

  • New joint FinCEN advisory identifies payroll, tax, and labor-contractor practices that may be associated with unauthorized employment and related fraud.
  • Employers using staffing companies and labor contractors should evaluate those relationships in light of the advisory’s red-flag indicators.
  • The advisory particularly emphasizes agriculture, construction, domestic service, hospitality, and staffing.

Article

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), together with the FDIC, OCC, and NCUA and in coordination with the IRS, issued a joint advisory (FIN-2026-A002) addressing financial risks associated with the unlawful employment of individuals who lack U.S. work authorization. The advisory was issued pursuant to May 19, 2026, Executive Order 14406, “Restoring Integrity to America’s Financial System,” which directed the secretary of the treasury to address risks posed by non-work-authorized populations’ use of the U.S. financial system.

Although ICE did not participate in issuing the June 5, 2026, advisory, FinCEN draws extensively on ICE worksite-enforcement data, making the advisory directly relevant to employers subject to worksite enforcement.

The advisory describes 18 red-flag indicators of potentially suspicious activity and identifies identity theft and payroll fraud as two principal mechanisms used to conceal unauthorized employment. It focuses particularly on agriculture, construction, domestic service, hospitality, and staffing.

For employers, the most significant indicators include:

  • Business operations or workforce levels that appear inconsistent with reported payroll;
  • Payroll tax payments that are significantly lower than expected based on the employer’s operations;
  • Cash or other off-the-books compensation arrangements;
  • Labor brokers receiving substantial payments and using shell entities or other mechanisms to distribute worker compensation;
  • Labor contractors with little apparent legitimate business activity; and
  • Financial institutions identifying a company through ICE worksite-enforcement announcements or other public reporting as having a history of worksite violations.

FinCEN describes schemes in which employers use labor brokers or shell companies to pay workers outside the regular payroll system, potentially avoiding payroll taxes and workers’ compensation obligations. According to FinCEN’s analysis of Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) reporting, financial institutions identified more than $2.5 billion in suspicious activity associated with this type of payroll-tax fraud in 2025.

The advisory also has a third-party risk component. Legitimate staffing companies and labor brokers are not themselves viewed as suspicious. The concern arises where the financial structure, business operations, payment practices, and employment arrangements collectively suggest that a contractor is being used to facilitate off-the-books employment or related fraud.

For employers, several practical questions follow:

  • Do payroll records and tax filings accurately reflect the employer’s workforce?
  • Are cash compensation and other nonstandard payment practices properly documented and reported?
  • Do staffing vendors and labor contractors have legitimate operations and appropriate compliance controls?
  • Are responsibilities for employee hiring, Form I-9 completion, payroll, and wage reporting clearly allocated in third-party arrangements?
  • Do records maintained by HR, payroll, finance, and procurement identify the same workforce and employment relationships?

The advisory does not modify the Form I-9 rules or establish a new employer immigration obligation. Its primary significance for employers is that financial institutions now have specific federal guidance directing them to identify and report financial activity associated with certain unauthorized-employment schemes — meaning that payroll irregularities, labor-contractor arrangements, or workforce discrepancies may independently trigger Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) filings. FinCEN has asked institutions to use “FINANCIALINTEGRITY-2026-A002” in related SARs, while separately encouraging reports of suspected knowing employment or exploitation of unauthorized workers to ICE.

For employers, the June 2026 advisory reinforces the need to treat worksite compliance as an organization-wide risk-management function — encompassing not only I-9 verification but also payroll integrity, third-party vendor oversight, and financial-transaction transparency — rather than solely an I-9 function.

Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney with any questions.

On Aug. 6, 2026, DHS submitted a proposed rule, “Eliminating the Discretionary 60-day Grace Period,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that seeks to eliminate the 60-day grace period available to H-1B workers and certain other employment-based visa holders following a job loss. The full regulatory text has not yet been released publicly. If the rule is finalized, eliminating the 60-day grace period could have far-reaching consequences for skilled foreign workers, employers, and the broader U.S. talent market.

Since 2017, eligible H-1B workers who lose their jobs have generally been granted up to 60 days, or until the end of their authorized stay, whichever comes first, to find a new sponsoring employer, change immigration status, or depart the United States. The policy was introduced to provide workers with a reasonable period to address an unexpected employment termination without immediately falling out of status. The grace period applies to several employment-based visa categories, including H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1, TN, E-1, E-2, and E-3 visas. Dependents whose status is tied to the principal visa holder are also impacted by the provision.

The proposed rule’s objective is to remove the existing grace period that allows affected foreign workers time to recover from job loss without immediately jeopardizing their immigration status.

The current 60-day grace period remains in effect while the rule undergoes the federal review and rulemaking process.

Why This Matters

For many H-1B professionals, a layoff does not simply mean unemployment; rather, it can trigger a race against the clock involving immigration status, family stability, housing obligations, and future career prospects.

The existing 60-day grace period allows highly skilled workers time to secure a new sponsor, complete transfer filings, or arrange to leave the country in an orderly manner. Without that protection, a terminated worker could face immediate immigration consequences, significantly reducing their ability to pursue new employment opportunities within the United States.

What Happens Next?

Additional steps, including potential public comment periods and further regulatory review, are expected before any change becomes effective. Until then, existing regulations remain unchanged.

The proposed elimination of the 60-day grace period marks a potentially significant shift in how the United States manages employment-based immigration. It serves as a reminder that immigration policy can change rapidly and affected individuals and employers should stay informed as DHS’s rulemaking process continues.

Immigration attorneys and advocacy groups are closely monitoring developments, as the proposal could represent one of the most consequential changes to employment-based immigration policy in recent years.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to assist employers and answer questions about how the proposed elimination of the grace period may affect your immigration program.

In a final rule released Aug. 10, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that employers with at least 50 U.S. employees, with more than half of whom holding H-1B, L-1A or L-1B status, must pay the Biometric Fee, $4,000 for an H-1B petition or $4,500 for an L-1 petition, for all extension-of-status petitions. Amended petitions that do not request an extension remain exempt. The rule goes into effect on Sept. 9, 2026.

Until now, DHS generally collected the fee when a covered employer first sponsored a worker or filed a change-of-employer petition but not for an extension petition. The agency said that approach improperly tied the biometric fee to a separate fraud-prevention fee. According to DHS, Congress signaled in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 that the biometric fee also applies to extensions of status.

DHS reported that only 27% of H-1B petitions filed by covered employers between fiscal years 2018 and 2025 were charged the fee. Had the new interpretation applied during that period, approximately 75% would have been subject to the fee. DHS did not provide a comparable calculation for L-1 petitions.

Employers, particularly smaller businesses, raised cost concerns during the rulemaking process. DHS received 146 public comments and estimated that, at most, about 16% of small businesses filing H-1B or L-1 petitions could be affected. The agency acknowledged the added burden but added that the result reflects the best reading of the statute and Congress’ intent.

DHS also said the added collections are needed to implement and maintain its biometric entry-exit system, which is designed to strengthen security and detect fraudulent travel documents. It expects the rule to generate an additional $37.9 million in fiscal year 2026 and $40 million in fiscal year 2027.

Under previous congressional action (Public Law 114–113), the Biometric Fee applies to qualifying petitions filed on or before Sept. 30, 2027.

Covered employers should review upcoming extension-of-status filings now and account for the additional cost in their budgets.

Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney with any questions.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on Aug. 5, 2026, issued Policy Alert PA-2026-05 updating and significantly shifting the USCIS Policy Manual provisions governing evidence, denials, and post-decision actions. The update clarifies that USCIS, in its discretion, may deny immigration benefit requests that lack required initial evidence or otherwise fail to establish eligibility without first issuing a Request for Evidence (RFE) or Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID). The guidance took effect immediately on Aug. 5, 2026, and applies to all pending and newly filed benefit requests.

Previously, USCIS policy generally encouraged officers to issue RFEs or NOIDs before denying filings with evidentiary deficiencies.

USCIS states that the prior guidance contributed to frivolous, placeholder, or substantially incomplete filings and increased adjudication delays, prompting the agency to restore officers’ discretion to deny deficient requests without first providing an opportunity to supplement the record.

Increased Risk of Denial for Incomplete Filings Without Additional Evidence Requests

Under the revised guidance, USCIS officers may deny a benefit request without first issuing an RFE or NOID if initial required evidence is missing or the filing otherwise fails to establish eligibility. Although officers retain discretion to request additional evidence in certain circumstances (such as refugee and asylum applications), USCIS emphasized that requestors should not assume they will have an opportunity to cure deficiencies after filing.

The guidance also confirms that officers may deny requests that lack a legal basis for approval without first providing an opportunity to supplement the record.

Changes to RFE, NOID Response Times

The USCIS update does not change the regulatory maximum response periods of 12 weeks for RFEs and 30 days for NOIDs. However, officers may establish shorter deadlines where appropriate. Additionally, USCIS no longer provides benefit requestors an additional 14 days to respond to notices mailed outside the United States.

In addition, USCIS clarifies that if a requestor submits any response to an RFE or NOID, including a partial response, the agency may treat the submission as a request for a decision based on the existing record.

Considerations for Employers

The policy change increases the importance of front-end case preparation and evidentiary review. Employers should work with immigration counsel. Employment-based petitions should be reviewed before filing to confirm that all required initial evidence and case-specific eligibility support are included. This may require earlier document collection, closer coordination with foreign national employees, and a more deliberate assessment of whether a case is ready to file or should be held until the record is complete.

Employers also should:

  • Build additional lead time into immigration timelines so counsel can identify required initial evidence, request missing documents, and resolve evidentiary gaps before submission; and
  • Evaluate filing strategy with counsel in time-sensitive situations, including status expiration, work authorization concerns, priority date considerations, and cases involving documents from foreign entities, universities, licensing bodies, or government agencies.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to assist with evaluating filing readiness, developing evidentiary strategies, responding to RFEs and NOIDs, and assessing the impact of the revised USCIS evidentiary standards on employment-based immigration matters.

On Aug. 5, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts 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). Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts et al. v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services et al., No. 1:26-cv-13038.

TPS EAD Cap Remains in Effect

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 rejected each of the plaintiffs’ challenges to the TPS EAD cap. It held that USCIS was not required to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking because the agency was implementing Congress’ statutory directive in H.R. 1. 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.

Finally, the court acknowledged that the new statutory framework could result in gaps in employment authorization, but it held that the possibility of such gaps did not render the Cap Policy unlawful. The court noted that USCIS could issue one-year automatic extensions to avoid gaps and that any future failure to comply with the TPS statute’s requirement that employment authorization remain effective throughout the TPS designation “may result in independent liability,” but such liability would be “independent of the mere implementation of the Cap Policy as required by H.R. 1.”

Court Stays Portions of Annual Asylum Fee Rule

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.

Employer Takeaways

The August 5 decision supersedes the court’s temporary July 21 administrative stay. As a result, employers should continue to follow current USCIS guidance regarding TPS-based EAD automatic extensions and Form I-9 reverification. The temporary relief preserving previously extended TPS EAD expiration dates is no longer in effect, although the litigation remains pending on the merits.

Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney with any questions.

On Aug. 5, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia confirmed that its prior order staying the termination of Haiti’s Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation is no longer in effect following action by the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. As a result, the court-ordered injunction that had temporarily prevented the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from implementing its termination of Haiti TPS has been lifted. TPS beneficiaries can no longer rely on the District Court’s stay as a basis for continued protection from the termination.

However, the underlying lawsuit has not been dismissed, as the court has to rule on the core constitutional issue concerning equal protection. The District Court has directed the parties to submit a proposed schedule for further proceedings.

In November 2025, former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem announced the termination of Haiti’s TPS designation. The termination was published in the Federal Register (90 Fed. Reg 54733 (Nov. 28, 2025)) and would have ended TPS protections for Haitian beneficiaries. A group of plaintiffs challenged the termination in federal court, arguing that the decision was unlawful and seeking to prevent DHS from implementing it while the litigation proceeded.

In February 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order staying the effective date of DHS’s termination of Haiti TPS pending judicial review. This injunction preserved TPS protections for affected nationals of Haiti while the court considered the merits of the challenge. The injunction temporarily delayed the termination and allowed Haitian TPS holders to maintain their status and corresponding employment authorization during the litigation.

On June 25, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the TPS terminations effective July 27, 2026, and remanded to the lower court to lift the stay. Mullin v. Doe, No. 25-1083. Following receipt of the D.C. Circuit’s mandate on Aug. 4, 2026, the District Court expressly stated that its prior order staying the effective date of DHS’s Haiti TPS termination “is no longer in effect.”

What This Means

Haitian TPS beneficiaries and employers should:

  • Closely monitor DHS announcements regarding implementation of the termination.
  • Review the validity of employment authorization as well as any related government guidance.
  • Evaluate whether Haiti TPS recipients may qualify for another immigration benefit or status.
  • Consult immigration counsel regarding individualized options and compliance obligations.

While the District Court’s injunction has been lifted, the case remains active, anticipating further litigation. Haitian TPS beneficiaries and employers should continue to monitor developments closely for additional court rulings, DHS guidance, or other administrative actions which may affect the timeline.

Jackson Lewis attorneys will continue to follow this matter and provide updates as new information becomes available.