- The First Circuit refused to block the one-year TPS work permit cap, maintaining current limits while the case proceeds.
- A July twenty-second retroactive cutoff date is causing thousands of TPS holders to lose their work authorization earlier than expected.
- Appeals court judges accelerated the briefing schedule for a broader stay request after a lower court upheld the federal policy.
The First Circuit declined on August 11, 2026, to issue an administrative stay blocking USCIS’s TPS work-permit cap. Instead, the appeals court set an expedited briefing schedule for a broader stay request, leaving the one-year limit in place while the case advances.
The decision followed a Massachusetts federal court’s August 5 refusal to halt the policy. That ruling remains operative for now.
The dispute involves employment authorization documents for TPS beneficiaries from El Salvador, Ukraine and Sudan. USCIS applied the limit to existing extensions, including permits that previously carried longer validity dates.
The plaintiffs filed their appeal on August 6. The case is Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts (VAM) et al. v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) et al., No. 1:26-cv-13038 (D. Mass.), and the appeal is No. 26-1703.
The challenge continues. The court accelerated the next step.
The one-year rule reaches permits that had longer expiration dates
The policy stems from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, or H.R. 1, which became law on July 4, 2025. It limits TPS-based employment authorization documents to a maximum validity of one year.
Before the change, some beneficiaries relied on 540-day automatic extensions while USCIS processed their employment authorization. A March 2026 agency update applied the one-year limit to existing extensions.
USCIS also used a retroactive cutoff of July 22, 2026 for many permits. Workers whose prior extensions reached later dates could therefore lose authorization sooner than expected.
| TPS group | Earlier extension date described in the case | Effect of the policy |
|---|---|---|
| El Salvador | August 31, 2026 | Authorization could end earlier under the July 22 cutoff |
| Ukraine | October 11, 2026 | Authorization could end earlier under the July 22 cutoff |
| Sudan | October 11, 2026 | Authorization could end earlier under the July 22 cutoff |
An estimated 600,000 Venezuelans and hundreds of thousands of beneficiaries from El Salvador, Sudan and Ukraine are directly affected. The policy’s immediate legal effect falls on permits tied to TPS status, including documents that had already received extended validity dates.
Employers must reverify employment authorization using the shortened expiration dates provided by USCIS. Those dates remain operative unless another court order changes them.
Judge Gorton upheld the permit policy while staying separate asylum-fee penalties
Senior U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton ruled on August 5 that USCIS did not need to use notice-and-comment rulemaking for the permit limit. He described the agency as “implementing Congress' statutory directive in H.R. 1.”
Gorton also addressed the possibility of employment gaps. A future failure to keep authorization effective, he wrote, “may result in independent liability” apart from the policy itself.
The order did not reject every challenge before the court. Gorton stayed Annual Asylum Fee penalties, preventing USCIS from rejecting asylum applications solely because applicants had not paid the new fee.
That relief concerns asylum applications, not the one-year employment authorization limit. The appeal seeks emergency relief from the permit policy and its application to existing extensions.
Workers and employers describe disruptions from the shortened dates
Abbey Rose Koenning Rutherford, lead counsel for Democracy Forward, said the policy causes “immediate and irreparable harm.” She argued that it removes legal workers’ livelihoods without adequate notice.
Martin Pineda of the National TPS Alliance described the effect on families in a July 21, 2026, statement:
“Behind every work permit is a parent trying to provide for their children. this ruling is a reminder that behind every TPS case is a family.”
An elder care provider in Boston reported firing 60 immigrant workers since early 2025 because of shifting work-authorization policies. More job losses were expected as the July 22 cutoff took effect.
Some Salvadoran TPS holders whose extensions had been scheduled through August 31, 2026, were considered unauthorized to work in late July under the new dates. Certain Ukrainian and Sudanese beneficiaries faced the same issue after earlier extensions that had reached October 11, 2026.
Business owners in southern Florida, home to the highest concentration of Haitian TPS recipients, described the loss of legal staff and customers as an “economic crisis.”
DHS says the statute dictates the agency’s obligations
DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin has maintained that the administration must follow H.R. 1’s fiscal mandates. That position supports the government’s argument that USCIS carried out a statutory directive rather than adopted a rule requiring a separate notice-and-comment process.
The lawsuit challenges three agency actions. One is a July 2025 Federal Register notice establishing the one-year EAD limit. Another is the March 2026 update applying that limit to existing permits. The third concerns the asylum-fee penalties that Gorton stayed.
The dispute also follows the Supreme Court’s June 2026 decision in Mullin v. Doe. The court held that federal courts generally lack authority to review the Secretary’s discretionary TPS determinations on non-constitutional grounds.
The current appeal concerns employment authorization connected to TPS, rather than a direct challenge to an individual discretionary TPS determination. The distinction will remain part of the litigation as the stay request moves forward.
USCIS continues enforcement while the appeals court considers broader relief
As of August 12, 2026, the appeals court had not issued an emergency injunction halting the EAD limit. The one-year rule therefore remains active, and employers must reverify documents using USCIS’s shortened expiration dates.
USCIS updated its manual on August 5 through PA-2026-05. The guidance permits officers to deny benefits lacking initial evidence without first issuing a Request for Evidence.
The agency’s manual change adds to an enforcement posture that is tightening as the court fight proceeds. The next appellate ruling will address whether the policy should be suspended during the litigation, not whether the August 11 order itself immediately stopped it.
