On July 21, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts temporarily blocked U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) from applying certain provisions of H.R. 1, commonly referred to as the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” on a retroactive basis. The affected provisions, which were scheduled to take effect on July 22, 2026, would have altered employment authorization and other requirements for certain Temporary Protected Status (TPS) beneficiaries and asylum applicants.

In Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts v. USCIS, No. 1:26-cv-13038 (D. Mass. July 21, 2026), Judge Nathaniel Gorton concluded that a temporary administrative stay was appropriate in light of the significant and immediate consequences that could occur if the challenged provisions were implemented before the court had an opportunity to consider their legality. The stay is currently scheduled to remain in place through August 5, 2026, although the court may modify or extend it.

While the stay is in effect, USCIS is temporarily prohibited from:

• Applying H.R. 1 retroactively to shorten the validity periods of certain Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) issued to TPS beneficiaries;
• Rejecting asylum applications because an applicant has not paid the newly established annual asylum fee;
• Terminating an asylum applicant’s employment authorization solely because the annual asylum fee has not been paid; and
• Initiating removal proceedings based solely on an asylum applicant’s failure to pay the annual asylum fee.

For affected TPS beneficiaries, the practical effect of the order is that they may continue relying on the EAD expiration dates that applied before USCIS implemented the H.R. 1 changes for as long as the stay remains in place. Importantly, the court’s order does not grant an additional extension of employment authorization; rather, it restores the expiration date that existed before USCIS attempted to implement the new provisions.

Employers should exercise caution when evaluating employment authorization for workers potentially affected by these changes. While the litigation remains pending, employers should not make employment eligibility decisions based solely on USCIS’s now-paused implementation of the H.R. 1 provisions. The situation remains fluid, and additional court orders or USCIS guidance could change the applicable requirements in the coming weeks.