A federal judge in Boston has temporarily blocked USCIS from carrying out several policies that would have cut off work authorization for tens of thousands of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) beneficiaries and asylum applicants.
U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton issued the administrative stay on July 21, 2026, in Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts v. USCIS, No. 1:26-cv-13038 (D. Mass.). The order came one day before the challenged policies were set to take effect on July 22.
The court will decide by August 5, 2026 whether to convert the temporary stay into longer-term relief while the case proceeds.
The lawsuit challenges USCIS policies implementing portions of H.R. 1. This is the tax and spending law passed in July 2025 that created a new annual asylum application fee and restricted work authorization for TPS holders.
The stay temporarily prevents USCIS from doing four things.
The retroactive EAD cuts would have hit TPS beneficiaries from El Salvador, Sudan, and Ukraine beginning July 22. While the stay is in effect, affected beneficiaries may continue to rely on the EAD expiration dates that applied before the challenged policies.
USCIS may continue to collect the annual asylum application fee itself. It may also continue processing initial asylum-based employment authorization applications without the 30-day adjudication deadline.
The order also does not disturb the TPS terminations the Supreme Court allowed to proceed in June 2026 for Haiti and Syria. Those terminations, and the EAD expiration dates tied to them, are from a separate line of litigation.
The plaintiffs argue that USCIS adopted the policies without the notice-and-comment rulemaking the Administrative Procedure Act requires, and that the policies exceed the agency's statutory authority.
Employers with employees working on TPS-based EADs from the affected countries have short-term certainty. The prior expiration dates are valid for now, and adverse employment action based solely on the July 22 cutoff dates would be premature. Form I-9 decisions in this window should be made carefully and with counsel.
The certainty is thin, though. An administrative stay is the most provisional form of relief a court can grant. The August 5 decision will tell us far more about where this case is headed.
Anyone whose work authorization depends on a discretionary or humanitarian program is living with genuine volatility.
That volatility is a reminder that petition-based categories grounded in individual qualifications, such as the O-1A nonimmigrant visa or the EB-2 National Interest Waiver, have a more stable statutory footing, although they carry their own adjudication risks.
Individuals affected by the stay should watch the August 5 date closely and discuss their specific situation with counsel before making employment or filing decisions based on this order.
