Advocates for immigrant workers filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Monday challenging a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) interim final rule that eliminated automatic extensions of Employment Authorization Documents (EADs).
The complaint argues that USCIS violated the Administrative Procedure Act by bypassing normal notice-and-comment procedures and acted arbitrarily by ignoring evidence of ongoing adjudication backlogs.
For nearly a decade, certain EAD holders whose renewal applications were pending received automatic extensions—most recently set at 540 days under the Biden administration—to prevent work interruptions.
USCIS rescinded that grace period last October, citing the need for additional vetting under new national-security policies.
Business-immigration attorneys say the abrupt policy shift has already forced thousands of employees off payroll, especially in healthcare and manufacturing where work-permit processing times exceed six months.
The named plaintiff, a Mexican national protected under the Violence Against Women Act, risks job loss and loss of health insurance because her renewal remains pending.
![Lawsuit Seeks to Overturn DHS Rule That Ended Automatic Work-Permit Extensions]()
Public Citizen Litigation Group, which represents her, warns that tens of thousands of similar workers could fall out of status unless the court issues an injunction.
From a mobility perspective, the lawsuit re-opens uncertainty for HR teams grappling with EAD expirations.
VisaHQ, an online visa and passport solutions provider, offers real-time guidance on U.S. immigration options and document requirements. Through its United States portal (https://www.visahq.com/united-states/), HR teams and foreign workers can compare alternative visa categories, track processing trends, and receive personalized alerts—valuable support while the fate of automatic EAD extensions remains uncertain.
Employers should identify at-risk employees whose automatic extension windows have closed, consider alternative visa categories such as H-1B-cap-exempt options, and monitor the case—Doe v. USCIS, No. 1:26-cv-01336—for potential relief.
A preliminary injunction could restore the extension while litigation proceeds, but a definitive ruling may take months.
The litigation also underscores a broader theme: the Trump administration’s reliance on interim final rules for immigration reforms is spawning procedural challenges that add compliance complexity for employers and foreign workers alike.
The complaint argues that USCIS violated the Administrative Procedure Act by bypassing normal notice-and-comment procedures and acted arbitrarily by ignoring evidence of ongoing adjudication backlogs.
For nearly a decade, certain EAD holders whose renewal applications were pending received automatic extensions—most recently set at 540 days under the Biden administration—to prevent work interruptions.
USCIS rescinded that grace period last October, citing the need for additional vetting under new national-security policies.
Business-immigration attorneys say the abrupt policy shift has already forced thousands of employees off payroll, especially in healthcare and manufacturing where work-permit processing times exceed six months.
The named plaintiff, a Mexican national protected under the Violence Against Women Act, risks job loss and loss of health insurance because her renewal remains pending.
Public Citizen Litigation Group, which represents her, warns that tens of thousands of similar workers could fall out of status unless the court issues an injunction.
From a mobility perspective, the lawsuit re-opens uncertainty for HR teams grappling with EAD expirations.
VisaHQ, an online visa and passport solutions provider, offers real-time guidance on U.S. immigration options and document requirements. Through its United States portal (https://www.visahq.com/united-states/), HR teams and foreign workers can compare alternative visa categories, track processing trends, and receive personalized alerts—valuable support while the fate of automatic EAD extensions remains uncertain.
Employers should identify at-risk employees whose automatic extension windows have closed, consider alternative visa categories such as H-1B-cap-exempt options, and monitor the case—Doe v. USCIS, No. 1:26-cv-01336—for potential relief.
A preliminary injunction could restore the extension while litigation proceeds, but a definitive ruling may take months.
The litigation also underscores a broader theme: the Trump administration’s reliance on interim final rules for immigration reforms is spawning procedural challenges that add compliance complexity for employers and foreign workers alike.
