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.