TLDR:
- A Massachusetts federal court denied a request to pause USCIS’s one-year cap on TPS-based work permits (EADs), including as applied to previously issued 540-day automatic extensions.
- TPS holders from Ukraine and Sudan whose 540-day extensions would otherwise have run until October 11, 2026, and El Salvador TPS holders whose extensions would have run until August 31, 2026, remain subject to USCIS’s announced July 22, 2026 cutoff.
- The ruling does not restore the old 540-day extension system and does not, on its own, extend anyone’s work authorization.
- Employers should continue following normal Form I-9 reverification procedures for affected employees rather than treating the pending lawsuit as proof of continued work authorization.
Why This Case Matters
For many Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders, the ability to legally work in the United States has felt increasingly unpredictable over the past year. New federal law shortened how long TPS-based work permits can last, and TPS holders from El Salvador, Ukraine, and Sudan were told that extensions they were already counting on would end early. A group of advocacy organizations sued to stop it.
On August 5, 2026, a federal judge in the District of Massachusetts ruled on that challenge. For TPS holders whose work authorization runs through these affected extensions, the outcome matters immediately, and it isn’t the one plaintiffs were hoping for.
What Changed: The One-Year EAD Cap
The root of this case traces back to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (“H.R. 1”), signed into law on July 4, 2025. Among other things, H.R. 1 changed how long a TPS-based Employment Authorization Document (EAD) can remain valid. Under the new law, a TPS EAD, including any renewal or extension, is only valid for one year, or for the remaining length of a country’s TPS designation, whichever is shorter. USCIS has referred to this as the “Cap Policy,” and it has repeated that same one-year limit in subsequent federal register notices and rulemaking.
Before this change, TPS holders who filed timely renewal applications were often granted an automatic 540-day extension of their existing work permits, specifically to prevent gaps in employment authorization while renewals were processed. That safety net is now being scaled back to fit within the new one-year ceiling.
Who This Affects: Ukraine, Sudan, and El Salvador TPS Holders
In January 2025, USCIS extended TPS designations for El Salvador, Ukraine, and Sudan by 18 months. TPS holders from those countries who filed timely renewal applications received the standard automatic 540-day extension of their expiring EADs.
Those extensions were originally set to run:
- Through August 31, 2026, for TPS holders from El Salvador
- Through October 11, 2026, for TPS holders from Ukraine and Sudan
In March 2026, however, USCIS announced that under the new Cap Policy, none of these 540-day extensions issued before July 21, 2025 would remain valid past July 22, 2026, regardless of the later expiration dates TPS holders had already been told to expect. In practical terms, that meant many Ukrainian and Sudanese TPS holders lost roughly three additional months of work authorization they had been counting on, and Salvadoran TPS holders lost about five weeks.
Plaintiffs argued this shortened cutoff was procedurally improper, unlawfully retroactive, and inconsistent with the underlying TPS statute. The court disagreed on all three points.
What the Court Decided
The judge found that plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on any of their challenges to the Cap Policy itself:
- Procedural validity: Because the Cap Policy largely restates what H.R. 1 already requires, the court found USCIS had good cause to skip the normal notice-and-comment rulemaking process.
- Retroactivity: The court concluded that applying the one-year cap to previously issued 540-day extensions is not impermissibly retroactive. In the court’s view, TPS holders don’t have a legally protected expectation in how long a given work permit extension will last, and the new cutoff applies to a future expiration date rather than reaching back to undo something that already happened.
- Conflict with the TPS statute: Plaintiffs also argued the cap could create gaps in work authorization, conflicting with the TPS law’s promise of continuous eligibility. The court agreed this was a legitimate concern in theory, but found that the possibility of a gap wasn’t enough, by itself, to prove the Cap Policy unlawful.
As a result, the court declined to pause or delay the Cap Policy, including the July 22, 2026 cutoff for previously issued 540-day extensions.
It’s worth noting that this same order did grant plaintiffs partial relief on a separate issue involving new consequences for asylum applicants who fail to pay an annual filing fee. That portion of the ruling does not change anything about the TPS EAD cap.
What This Means for TPS Holders
If your work authorization depends solely on one of the pre-July 2025, 540-day automatic extensions discussed above, this ruling suggests the July 22, 2026 cutoff currently stands. This decision does not:
- block the one-year TPS EAD cap;
- restore the prior 540-day extension system; or
- prevent USCIS from applying the one-year limitation to extensions that were already issued.
That said, every case is different. It’s worth discussing your specific situation with an immigration attorney if any of the following could apply to you:
- USCIS separately issued you a new EAD or a renewal beyond the extension itself;
- Another automatic-extension mechanism might apply to your situation;
- A later court order or agency action changes the current rules; or
- You have an independent source of work authorization tied to another immigration status or category.
What This Means for Employers
This ruling does not restore work authorization for TPS beneficiaries whose TPS-based EAD ended on July 22, 2026 under the Cap Policy. The court allowed USCIS and DHS to continue enforcing that policy while the underlying lawsuit continues, and it did not grant any temporary relief extending work authorization during the litigation.
That means, absent new DHS guidance, a different source of work authorization, or a future court order changing the outcome, employers generally should not treat the pending lawsuit itself as evidence that an affected employee remains authorized to work. Normal Form I-9 reverification procedures and timelines continue to apply. Given how quickly TPS policy and litigation are moving right now, employers with TPS-holding employees, particularly from El Salvador, Ukraine, or Sudan, may want to review their I-9 compliance procedures with counsel to make sure their process reflects the current legal landscape.
Where TPS Work Authorization Stands Now
This is a developing area of immigration law, and this ruling is a decision on a preliminary motion, not a final resolution of the underlying lawsuit. For now, though, TPS holders and employers alike should plan around the Cap Policy and the July 22, 2026 cutoff as the operative rule, rather than assuming the litigation will change anything in the near term.
Nobody should navigate immigration alone, especially when the rules are shifting this quickly. If you’re a TPS holder trying to understand your options, or an employer managing compliance across a workforce affected by these changes, Berardi Immigration Law can help you sort through what applies to your specific situation and what to do next. Click here to book your consultation today.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Does this ruling end TPS for El Salvador, Ukraine, or Sudan?
No. This case is specifically about how long TPS-based work permits (EADs) remain valid, not about whether TPS designations themselves continue. TPS status and work authorization are related but separate issues.
Q: If my 540-day extension was supposed to last until October 2026, can I still work after July 22, 2026?
Based on this ruling, USCIS’s July 22, 2026 cutoff for those extensions remains in effect unless you have another basis for work authorization, such as a separately issued EAD, another qualifying status, or a later change in the law. An immigration attorney can help review your specific documents and timeline.
Q: Is this decision final?
No. This was a ruling on a motion to pause the Cap Policy while the broader lawsuit continues, it is not a final decision on the merits of the case. The litigation is ongoing, and further developments are possible.
Ready to have Berardi on your side?
Whether you’re a business looking to hire or a professional hoping to relocate, immigration law can be complicated. But you don’t have to do it alone. Put our experience to work for you.