Original Date Announced

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued an interim final rule (IFR) to end the automatic 540-day extension under 8 C.F.R § 274a.13 of Form I-766 employment authorization documents (EADs) that were timely filed. Applications filed before October 30, 2025, will still receive the automatic extension. This policy applies to refugees, asylees, green-card applicants, and noncitizens applying for or granted withholding of removal, among others. The IFR does not affect automatic extension of EADs for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) beneficiaries under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 244 or the validity of EADs that were automatically extended prior to October 30 or which are otherwise automatically extended by law or Federal Register notice.

USCIS states the change aims to strengthen vetting and security checks, including more background checks and biometric data collection. USCIS acknowledges that this change could leave some individuals temporarily out of work. USCIS asserts that this action is consistent with EO 14159 § 16's directive to DHS to take all appropriate action to ensure EADs are issued consistent with Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 274A and EADs are not issued to unauthorized noncitizens.

Public comments must be received on or before December 1, 2025.

Trump 2.0 [ID #2037]

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

Reported 2026.01.08: H-1B Spouses Sue Over End to Automatic Work Permit Renewals - Bloomberg

H-4 visa holders—those holding visas issued to spouses of H-1B visa holders—sued DHS, arguing that the October 2025 IFR eliminating H-1B permit extensions is unlawful. Plaintiffs allege that this final rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by failing to establish good cause for skipping notice and comment and because its adoption was arbitrary and capricious. Plaintiffs argue that "[t]he administration's true rationale, stripping the ability of people lawfully in the U.S. to sustain themselves, is embarrassingly obvious," and that the administration's asserted need for additional screening is untrue "because DHS has programs allowing the agency to continuously vet individuals without adjudicating applications at a specific point in time." Doe v. DHS, No. 8:26-cv-00060 (C.D. Cal.).

Link to case here. Our litigation entries generally report only the initial complaint and any major substantive filings or decisions. For additional information, CourtListener provides access to PACER and all available pleadings. Other sites that track litigation in more detail or organize cases by topic include Civil Rights Clearinghouse, Justice Action Center, National Immigration Litigation Alliance, and Just Security