On the evening of August 5, 2026, U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton issued his long-awaited follow-up ruling in Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts v. USCIS, No. 1:26-cv-13038 — the case that produced the emergency stay covered in our July 21 report. The outcome is mixed, and for a specific group of TPS holders, it is bad news: the court declined to keep blocking USCIS’s retroactive one-year cap on Temporary Protected Status work permits.
What the Court Decided
Judge Gorton held that the plaintiffs had not shown they were likely to succeed on the merits of their challenge to the TPS Employment Authorization Document (EAD) cap or its retroactive application. That means USCIS can proceed with shortening TPS-based EADs to a one-year automatic extension — instead of the previous 540-day extension — for beneficiaries whose renewal applications were filed before July 22, 2025.
This directly affects TPS holders from El Salvador, Ukraine, and Sudan, whose EADs were the specific subject of this phase of the litigation. Nationals of other TPS-designated countries who were relying on the same 540-day extension policy — including Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Somalia, Syria, Ethiopia, Burma, and South Sudan — should also treat this as a signal that the broader legal theory blocking the cap has weakened, even though each country’s status can involve separate litigation and designation timelines.
| Policy | Status After August 5 Ruling |
|---|---|
| TPS EAD one-year cap (El Salvador, Ukraine, Sudan) | Stay denied — USCIS may enforce the retroactive one-year cap |
| Annual asylum application fee — denial/removal penalties | Stay granted nationwide — USCIS cannot reject pending asylum applications or start removal proceedings solely for nonpayment of the fee while litigation continues |
| 30-day work permit processing deadline for asylum seekers | Remains blocked — USCIS does not have to meet the old 30-day timeline, but cannot penalize applicants for the agency’s own delay |
In practical terms, the court split the case down the middle: the plaintiffs lost on the TPS work-permit-cap claim but won a broader, nationwide block on the asylum fee penalty provisions — a protection that had previously been narrower.
Who Needs to Act Now
If you are a TPS holder from El Salvador, Ukraine, or Sudan whose EAD renewal was filed before July 22, 2025 and who was counting on the 540-day automatic extension, your work authorization may now expire on the one-year mark rather than the longer extension you may have been expecting. Check your I-797C receipt notice for the specific automatic-extension end date,
and do not assume the July stay still protects you — it does not, for this group. For a full walkthrough of how EAD automatic extensions work and how to confirm your status, see our EAD Work Permit 2026 guide.
Asylum applicants who have not paid the new annual fee remain protected from denial or removal proceedings for nonpayment alone, nationwide, while the case continues. This is actually a stronger protection than the narrower version of the stay issued in July.
What Happens Next
This is a preliminary ruling on a request for a stay, not a final judgment — the underlying lawsuit continues, and plaintiffs are expected to consider an appeal on the TPS EAD cap portion of the decision. Given the pace of this litigation (an emergency stay on July 21, followed by this ruling exactly two weeks later), further developments are likely within weeks rather than months. We will update this post and our July 21 report as the case progresses.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does this ruling affect all TPS holders?
This specific ruling addressed TPS holders from El Salvador, Ukraine, and Sudan. Other countries’ TPS designations involve separate litigation, but the legal reasoning here — that the one-year EAD cap is likely lawful — is a warning sign for TPS holders relying on the same 540-day extension policy regardless of country.
Can USCIS enforce the TPS EAD cap immediately?
Yes. With the stay denied, there is no longer a court order blocking USCIS from enforcing the retroactive one-year cap for the covered group. Affected holders should check their specific EAD extension end date rather than assume continued protection.
Do asylum applicants still have to pay the annual fee?
Yes, the fee requirement itself was not blocked. What the court blocked, nationwide, is USCIS denying applications or starting removal proceedings solely because the fee has not been paid.
Is this the final decision in the case?
No. This is a ruling on preliminary relief. The underlying case, Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts v. USCIS, continues, and an appeal of this portion of the ruling is possible.
