On July 21, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued an order in Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts v. USCIS granting plaintiffs’ emergency motion for an administrative stay of certain USCIS policies based on H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The decision temporarily blocks USCIS from enforcing retroactive employment authorization cutoffs that would have stripped work permits from tens of thousands of TPS holders mid-renewal cycle.
What changed
The lawsuit challenges USCIS policies implementing portions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, President Donald Trump’s tax and spending law passed by Congress in July 2025, which created a new annual asylum application fee and restricted work authorization for TPS holders. The federal court administratively 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 litigation focuses primarily on TPS beneficiaries from Ukraine, El Salvador and Sudan, who relied on USCIS notices confirming automatic extensions of their employment authorization. The administrative stay preserves the status quo while the court considers whether to issue a preliminary injunction, allowing many TPS beneficiaries who previously qualified for a 540-day automatic EAD extension to continue to rely on those longer extensions instead of the shortened July 22 expiration date announced by USCIS.
The Court ordered that this stay remains in effect while it considers plaintiffs’ request for a further stay of these policies, which the Court said it will do on or before August 5, 2026.
Why it matters
If USCIS had enforced the July 22, 2026 cutoff, more than 200,000 people from El Salvador, Sudan, and Ukraine would have been at risk of losing their work authorization. Many of these TPS holders had pending EAD renewals and relied on USCIS’s prior guidance that automatic 540-day extensions would apply. The stay pauses that retroactive policy shift and preserves work authorization for beneficiaries who filed renewal applications before the OBBBA took effect.
The court has not yet ruled on the ultimate legality of the challenged USCIS policies, but the July 21 order is a temporary administrative stay intended to preserve the status quo, with TPS-related EADs with expiration dates between July 22, 2026, and Sept. 8, 2026, (El Salvador) and July 22 through October 18, 2026 (Ukraine and Sudan) remaining valid pending further court action if the TPS EAD application was filed before July 4, 2025.
Practitioners and employers should note that eligibility for the stay depends on filing history and TPS country. Whether the court’s order applies to a particular individual will depend on that person’s TPS history, filing dates, EAD category and USCIS notices or receipts.
Way forward
-
Do not assume EADs expired on July 22, 2026. If your client or employee applied for TPS-based work authorization before July 4, 2025, and holds TPS from El Salvador, Ukraine, or Sudan, their EAD may be preserved under the stay. Review all USCIS notices and receipts carefully.
-
Monitor the August 5, 2026 deadline. The court will rule on the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction by that date. This order is temporary; the underlying legal question will remain contested until then.
-
Advise clients to keep renewal applications active. Beneficiaries with pending Form I-765 (EAD) renewals should not assume the case outcome and should continue to comply with USCIS instructions; doing so preserves legal arguments and protects status.
-
Employers: avoid adverse action on July 22 expiration dates. Employers should avoid taking adverse employment action based solely on the July 22, 2026 employment authorization expiration dates established under the challenged USCIS policies while the administrative stay remains in effect.
Disclaimer
This article is informational only and is not legal advice. Fola Form is a software company, not a law firm. Immigration law is complex, policy shifts rapidly, and court decisions can be modified or reversed on appeal. TPS beneficiaries and employers must verify their eligibility against the court order and USCIS guidance and consult a qualified immigration attorney before taking action. Court orders can change without notice; practitioners should monitor the District Court docket and USCIS announcements for updates.