This page tracks recent immigration law developments affecting employers, professionals, investors, physicians, researchers, families, green card holders, citizenship applicants, students, and people applying for visas abroad. Immigration law is changing quickly in 2026, and entries are updated as the law changes.
Kennedy Law focuses on strategic immigration planning, including employment-based immigration, family immigration, naturalization, citizenship claims, adjustment of status, consular processing, waivers, work visas, and green card filings. The page also includes selected updates on asylum, immigration court, detention, and enforcement where those developments affect clients’ rights, risks, or long-term immigration options.
Topics covered include employment-based immigration, family immigration, naturalization, citizenship, green cards, adjustment of status, consular processing, travel bans, visa restrictions, consular interview and vetting requirements, visa bonds, public charge, work permits, asylum, refugee processing, TPS, humanitarian protection, and selected enforcement developments including detention, custody review, and third-country removal.
For questions about how any of these updates affect your situation, contact Kennedy Law at 301.823.6670 or TK@KennedyVisas.com.
Kennedy Law Insights & Updates identifies which rules are in force, which courts have blocked or narrowed, and which questions remain unsettled. Whether a policy applies to a particular person depends on nationality, immigration status, visa category, date of entry, place of processing, prior filings, existing visas, and pending litigation.
🔷 Kennedy Law Beyond Immigration explores the broader legal principles reflected in immigration cases between Congress, the Executive, and the courts. The debates in immigration decisions reach far beyond immigration. Courts may disagree over how closely judges should adhere to the text enacted by Congress, how much discretion federal agencies should have in implementing statutes, when courts should defer to executive decision-making, and when judicial review is necessary to ensure that agencies remain within the limits established by Congress. These recurring questions influence healthcare, environmental regulation, civil rights, labor law, and many other areas of federal law. These notes place significant immigration decisions in that broader legal context, showing not only what the law is, but the competing legal principles that shape its development.
Updated August 27, 2026 —❖— Several separate restrictions now operate at the same time, and they should not be confused with one another.
Three further restrictions operate alongside these.
These overlapping policies can produce very different results depending on nationality, visa category, whether a visa was already valid on the proclamation's effective date, whether an exception applies, and whether the case is being handled by USCIS, the State Department, CBP, or an immigration court.
See the Travel Bans & Visa Restrictions section below for the complete country lists, exceptions, visa bond rules, the worldwide immigrant visa interview pause, the 75-country litigation, and the separate litigation over USCIS adjudication holds.
The rule giving USCIS 30 days to decide a first work permit request based on a pending asylum case briefly vanished from the regulations this spring and was put back in July. It applies now. However, a proposed rule would stretch that deadline to 180 days, so anyone counting on it should confirm it is still in place at the time of filing
Updated August 26, 2026 —❖— Temporary Protected Status has changed dramatically since the Supreme Court's June 25 decision in Mullin v. Doe. Seven country designations have terminated since that ruling: Yemen on July 20, Haiti and Syria on July 27, Burma and South Sudan on August 7, Somalia on August 14, and Ethiopia on August 18.
Every current or former TPS holder should know three separate dates: the expiration or termination date of the country designation, the expiration date printed on the employment authorization document, and any later automatic extension date established by statute, Federal Register notice, court order, or USCIS guidance.
See the Temporary Protected Status section below for country-by-country status, EAD rules, employer reverification guidance, and pending litigation.
Updated August 26, 2026 —❖— On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court resolved the constitutional challenge to the January 2025 executive order restricting birthright citizenship. In Trump v. Barbara, the Court held that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The decision leaves the federal government required to recognize citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment and 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a) for children born in the United States regardless of whether their parents are undocumented or present in temporary immigration status, subject to the narrow longstanding exceptions recognized by constitutional law. A Supreme Court decision is final and cannot be appealed.
On August 6, 2026, the President signed two new executive orders. The first directs the federal government to decline to recognize citizenship where neither parent is a citizen and either parent is an "alien enemy," is an employee of a foreign government such as an ambassador, or engaged in a commercial transaction to obtain or access birthright citizenship, including a transaction with a surrogate or one ensuring the mother is present in the United States to give birth. The second targets birth tourism. Neither order rescinds the January 2025 order the Supreme Court struck down.
The orders are being challenged in this district. On August 24, 2026, the plaintiffs in CASA Inc. et al. v. Trump et al., No. 8:25-cv-00201 (D. Md.), moved for additional preliminary injunctive relief, arguing that Barbara already establishes that the affected children are citizens and that the President cannot amend the Constitution by executive action. They contend the order specifies no date cutoff, does not exclude children of lawful permanent residents, leaves the "alien enemy" category undefined, and extends the foreign government employee exception far beyond the ambassadorial immunity recognized in United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898.
Birthright citizenship remains the law. Parents who may fall within the categories named in the August order should not assume it does not reach them because they hold lawful status, since the order as drafted contains no lawful permanent resident carve-out. Families in that position, particularly employees of foreign embassies, consulates, and international organizations in this region, should obtain individualized advice before a birth rather than after.
Read our analysis of the government's challenge in Trump v. Barbara:
https://kennedyvisas.com/blog-kl-insights/f/law360-a-core-weakness-in-the-challenge-to-birthright-citizenship
Updated August 14, 2026 —❖— In Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island vacated USCIS policies that had frozen or delayed immigration benefit adjudications for nationals of 39 travel-ban or high-risk countries, as well as individuals with Palestinian Authority-issued or endorsed documents. The vacated policies affected green cards, work permits, asylum applications, naturalization applications, and other USCIS filings.
These overlapping policies produce very different results depending on nationality, visa category, whether a visa was already valid on the proclamation's effective date, whether an exception applies, and whether the case is being handled by USCIS, the State Department, CBP, or an immigration court.
Read our analysis:
https://kennedyvisas.com/blog-kl-insights/f/fed-court-vacates-uscis-travel-ban-freeze-on-immigration-benefits
Updated August 2026 —❖— In Pacito v. Trump, the Ninth Circuit largely allowed the administration's suspension of refugee admissions and refugee processing to continue, relying on presidential authority under INA § 212(f). The court preserved protections requiring continued services for refugees already admitted to the United States and maintaining certain resettlement obligations. The litigation continues, with trial scheduled for September 8, 2026. Refugee applicants, approved refugees abroad, following-to-join relatives, and recently admitted refugees are affected differently, so the posture of the individual case matters.
The fiscal year 2026 ceiling was originally 7,500, the lowest in the program's history. On May 21, 2026, an emergency presidential determination published at 91 Fed. Reg. 31645 raised it to 17,500, with the additional admissions allocated among Afrikaners from South Africa consistent with Executive Order 14204. Admissions totaled 7,730 as of June 30, 2026.
Effective July 10, 2026 —❖— In an interim final rule titled “Signatures on Immigration Benefit Requests,” USCIS changed how signature defects may be handled after an immigration filing has already been accepted for processing.
Read our analysis:
https://kennedyvisas.com/blog-kl-insights/f/new-rule-invalid-signatures-may-lead-to-denials-lost-fees
Effective August 5, 2026 —❖— USCIS changed two policies on the same day. Both took effect immediately, and both apply to cases already filed and waiting, not just to new ones.
The first change: USCIS can now deny your case without asking you for missing documents.
For years, if something was missing from a filing, USCIS usually sent a Request for Evidence, which is a letter asking you to send the missing item. That letter was a second chance. Under Policy Alert PA-2026-05, officers no longer have to send one. If a required document is missing, or the officer decides the file does not prove you qualify, the officer can simply deny the case. Three related changes make this harder:
The second change: Officers must now suggest DNA testing in some family cases.
What this means for you.
For the full explanation of both policy changes, including what DNA testing involves and what it costs, see the Adjustment of Status section below.
June 2026 —❖— Montgomery County Executive Marc Elrich issued a public statement sharply criticizing the Supreme Court’s June 25, 2026 TPS and port-of-entry asylum decisions. He emphasized that many TPS holders have lived, worked, paid taxes, raised U.S. citizen children, and built their lives in the United States legally and in good faith. He also noted the practical consequence of TPS termination: loss of work authorization, loss of protection from removal, and renewed exposure to detention and deportation unless another immigration option is available.
Elrich also criticized the Court’s asylum decision allowing the government to turn away people seeking protection before they are deemed to have arrived in the United States, stating that seeking asylum is not a crime and remains part of U.S. law. For TPS holders and asylum seekers, the practical point is immediate: do not panic, do not rely on rumors, confirm current status and deadlines, and speak with a trusted legal provider before making decisions about travel, employment, filings, or long-term immigration strategy.
August 24, 2026 —❖— DHS has proposed a fee of $103,265 on all H-1B cap-subject petitions, including those eligible for the advanced degree exemption. The fee would be paid at the time of filing and would be imposed in addition to all other applicable fees or payments. The proposal appeared on public inspection August 24, 2026 under RIN 1615-AD20, DHS Docket No. USCIS-2026-0298, and would be codified at 8 C.F.R. § 106.2(a)(3)(xii). Comments are due 30 days after Federal Register publication.
What the fee would pay for. DHS states that the fee would recover a portion of the federal government's costs for administering the lawful immigration system. The agency lists those costs as adjudication of immigration benefits, fraud detection and national security vetting, systems modernization, records and fee collection operations, immigration court operations, consular visa processing, labor standards enforcement, and interagency coordination. DHS estimates the fee would generate approximately $8.8 billion annually based on a projected volume of 85,000 cap-subject petitions.
A USCIS spokesperson described the fee as intended to recover costs incurred across the federal government to adjudicate, vet, and support lawful immigration programs that otherwise must be funded by taxpayers.
Where the money would go. DHS proposes allocating roughly $3.0 billion to USCIS, $2.96 billion to the Executive Office for Immigration Review, $1.21 billion to the Department of Labor, $1.05 billion to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, $484 million to the Department of State, and $76 million to Customs and Border Protection. Under this structure, employers sponsoring skilled workers would fund the immigration courts and interior enforcement.
DHS acknowledges the objection directly, stating that cap-subject petitioners may object to paying a fee that recovers costs far beyond the adjudication of their own petitions, and answering that the USCIS fee schedule has long recovered the costs of administering the system as a whole, including requests for which no fee is charged or for which the fee does not recover full cost.
Who would pay and who would not. The fee would apply to the 65,000 regular cap and to the additional 20,000 available to those holding a master's degree or higher from a United States institution. It would not apply to cap-exempt petitions, including those filed by institutions of higher education, affiliated nonprofits, and nonprofit or governmental research organizations.
Why the authority differs from the $100,000 proclamation fee. The September 2025 proclamation rested on the President's authority to restrict entry, and a federal court vacated the implementing policy on the ground that the payment was an unauthorized tax. This proposal rests instead on INA § 286(m), 8 U.S.C. § 1356(m), which authorizes the Secretary to set fees at a level ensuring recovery of the full costs of providing adjudication and naturalization services, including services provided without charge. DHS relies on INA § 286(n) as the mechanism for reimbursing other agencies' appropriations, and states that the statute does not limit fee-funded cost recovery to USCIS alone.
Relationship to the proclamation fee. DHS notes that the September 2025 proclamation expires September 21, 2026 unless extended. The vacatur of the implementing policy remains in effect after the First Circuit denied a stay on July 24, 2026. DHS states that if that order is later lifted, it would collect the proclamation payment consistent with the proclamation's terms and any extension or renewal. A petitioner subject to both would owe both.
What employers should do now. Nothing takes effect on publication. Do not add this fee to current filings. DHS must consider comments and publish a final rule with an effective date before the fee can apply.
Employers with a stake in the outcome should file comments. DHS's own analysis concedes a significant economic impact on 11,051 small entities, which is 76 percent of the 14,541 small entities affected, and identifies no alternative that would reduce that burden. The proposal also does not address whether the fee would be returned if a petition is denied or withdrawn.
For employers already reassessing alternatives, this proposal strengthens the case for evaluating O-1, EB-1, EB-2 National Interest Waiver, and Conrad 30 pathways, none of which would be subject to this fee. Employers should also evaluate whether a position qualifies as cap-exempt, since the exemption would now carry a six-figure differential rather than a scheduling advantage.
Updated September 16, 2026 —❖— On Monday, September 14, 2026, one day before the rule was scheduled to take effect, Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a nationwide preliminary injunction in Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security**, No. 1:26-cv-13799**. The order postpones the rule's effective date and bars DHS and ICE from implementing it while the lawsuit continues. F-1 students therefore continue to be admitted and to remain in the United States for duration of status as long as they maintain their status.
The 48-page order rests on the Administrative Procedure Act. The court found that DHS allowed only 32 days for public comment, received roughly 22,000 comments that were predominantly negative, and did not adequately justify the rule. The court called the government's rationales "exceptionally weak" and wrote that the national security justification "borders on the absurd," because it relied on a small number of anecdotes involving incidents the rule would not have prevented. The court also found that DHS never explained how a four-year cap would prevent visa fraud. Although the judge sharply criticized the rule's substance, including an extension process under which a DHS official could deny additional time with no right of appeal, he stated that the injunction rests on the procedural violations alone.
The government may appeal, and DHS's general counsel has publicly criticized the ruling. Kennedy Law is monitoring the case because the rule could still take effect if the injunction is lifted or narrowed.
DHS published the final rule on July 17, 2026. The rule would end "duration of status," commonly shown as D/S on Form I-94, for F-1 students. The final rule would establish fixed admission periods for F, J, and I nonimmigrants and would require an application to USCIS when additional time in the United States is needed beyond the authorized admission period.
If the rule takes effect, a school's extension of the program end date on Form I-20 would no longer, by itself, extend the student's authorized stay. Students would need to file a timely extension-of-stay application with USCIS.
Students should continue to review program dates, passport validity, academic plans, practical training, transfers, and possible delays so that they are prepared if the injunction is lifted.
Read more: F-1 Students: Court Blocks Rule Ending Duration of Status
Kennedy Law Beyond Immigration Note: Judge Saylor separated what he found troubling about the rule from what a court may act on. He questioned whether the rule's real purpose was to assert greater government control over academic institutions and the press. Even so, he wrote that a court cannot block a rule because it is misguided, and that the judiciary's role "is not to ensure that the executive branch does not make unwise decisions." Because the defect he found is procedural, DHS could attempt to cure it through a new rulemaking with a longer comment period and a fuller explanation. If DHS does, the policy questions the judge raised would return in a posture where procedural review offers less protection.
Effective Sept. 21, 2025 —❖— A presidential proclamation imposes a $100,000 payment requirement on certain new H-1B petitions. The fee primarily applies to petitions for beneficiaries who are outside the United States and do not already hold a valid H-1B visa, as well as petitions requesting consular notification, port-of-entry notification, or pre-flight inspection. It generally does not apply to change-of-status, extension, amendment, or change-of-employer petitions filed for workers already maintaining valid status in the United States, including many F-1 graduates changing status to H-1B, unless the change-of-status request is denied and the beneficiary must later obtain an H-1B visa abroad. The fee has significantly altered hiring strategies for employers recruiting talent from outside the United States.
June 2026 —❖— In State of California v. Mullin, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that the $100,000 H-1B payment requirement was unlawful and vacated the policy. Four days later, the same court stayed its own order while the government pursued appellate review. As a result, the fee remains enforceable for qualifying petitions and should not be treated as eliminated. Although national-interest exceptions remain available, the government has described them as extraordinarily rare.
Read our analysis:
https://kennedyvisas.com/blog-kl-insights/f/fed-court-vacates-100000-h-1b-fee-then-stays-its-own-order
Effective Feb. 27, 2026 —❖— In a DHS final rule implemented by USCIS for the FY 2027 cap season, the traditional random H-1B cap lottery was replaced by a wage-weighted selection system that gives preference to registrations offering higher prevailing wage levels, particularly Level III and Level IV positions. The annual statutory cap remains 85,000, and the FY 2027 cap was fully reached under the new system. For many employers, compensation strategy has become just as important as eligibility when planning an H-1B filing.
Updated June 2026 —❖— The $100,000 H-1B fee does NOT apply to other employment-based immigration options, including O-1 extraordinary ability visas, P visas, EB-1 immigrant petitions, EB-2 National Interest Waivers, and the Conrad 30 physician waiver program. Each category has distinct eligibility requirements and evidentiary standards, and several are receiving increased government scrutiny. As H-1B filings become more expensive and more competitive, employers and highly skilled professionals are increasingly evaluating these alternatives as part of their long-term immigration strategy.
June 17, 2026 —❖— In Policy Memorandum PM-602-0200, USCIS clarified that dairy-related positions may qualify for the H-2A temporary agricultural worker program when the employer can establish a temporary or seasonal labor need. Dairy farms were not categorically barred from H-2A, but many struggled to meet the temporary-or-seasonal requirement because dairy operations often run year-round.
The memo directs USCIS to evaluate H-2A petitions for dairy-related positions case by case, based on the totality of the facts. The guidance does NOT convert permanent, year-round dairy jobs into H-2A positions. Back-to-back petitions for the same job duties may suggest an ongoing permanent need unless the employer can show that the duties or labor needs are demonstrably different.
For dairy employers, the change creates a new planning opportunity, but not a shortcut. Employers still must satisfy H-2A requirements, including temporary labor certification, recruitment, wage, housing, transportation, and compliance obligations before using the program
July 17, 2026 Final Rule —❖— Eligibility alone is no longer enough to obtain a green card through adjustment of status. USCIS issued Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199, titled "Adjustment of Status is a Matter of Discretion and Administrative Grace, and an Extraordinary Relief that Permits Applicants to Dispense with the Ordinary Consular Visa Process." The memo directs officers deciding Form I-485 applications under INA § 245(a) to treat adjustment as a discretionary act of administrative grace rather than an entitlement, and to weigh as negative factors a failure to depart after a temporary admission or parole, conduct inconsistent with the purpose of the visa used to enter, and the availability of consular processing abroad. The memo does not change who is eligible to adjust, amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, or carry the force of regulation. It applies to most family- and employment-based adjustment cases, but not to refugees, asylees, SIJS, U-visa, or T-visa applicants, who adjust under separate statutory provisions. The "only in extraordinary circumstances" language that drew widespread attention appeared in the agency's press release—not the memorandum itself—and DHS later emphasized that adjudications remain individualized and case by case.
May 21, 2026 —❖— Beginning September 18, 2026, DHS will apply a broader and less predictable public charge framework. Unlike the now-rescinded 2022 rule, which generally limited consideration of public benefits to public cash assistance for income maintenance and long-term institutionalization at government expense, the 2026 final rule removes many of those regulatory limits. USCIS officers may consider a wider range of facts and circumstances, including receipt of means-tested public benefits on or after September 18, 2026. Benefits received before the effective date will be evaluated under the narrower 2022 framework.
Receipt of a public benefit does not by itself require a public charge finding. USCIS will evaluate the benefit together with the applicant’s financial circumstances, health, household support, sponsor evidence, and the rest of the record in deciding whether the applicant is likely at any time to become a public charge. The new rule nevertheless gives officers broader discretion and provides fewer clear assurances concerning how particular benefits and personal circumstances will be weighed. Applicants filing near or after September 18, 2026 should carefully review benefit history, income, assets, debts, health insurance, medical circumstances, household support, and sponsor evidence before submitting an application subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility.
Updated May 2026 —❖— The PM-602-0199 memo transforms what was often a routine procedural decision into a more significant strategic choice. Adjustment allows applicants to remain in the United States with work and travel authorization while Form I-485 is pending, but it now faces heightened discretionary scrutiny and may result in more Requests for Evidence and Notices of Intent to Deny as officers document their exercise of discretion. Consular processing avoids that discretionary framework but requires departure from the United States, which may trigger the three- or ten-year unlawful-presence bars for some applicants. Dual-intent classifications such as H-1B and L-1 remain compatible with pursuing adjustment, and applicants with long, lawful status histories are generally better positioned, but the memo cautions that maintaining dual-intent status alone does not guarantee a favorable exercise of discretion.
KEY POINT FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED APPLICANTS:
For professionals, physicians, researchers, executives, investors, and other highly skilled workers pursuing employment-based permanent residence—including H-1B, L-1, O-1, E-2, EB-1, and EB-2 National Interest Waiver cases—the choice between adjustment of status and consular processing has become an increasingly important strategic decision.
April 28, 2026 —❖— A State Department cable directs consular officers to ask every nonimmigrant visa applicant whether the applicant has experienced harm or fears returning to the home country. Because these questions address the threshold elements of an asylum claim, the answers become part of the applicant's permanent immigration record. Applicants who answer affirmatively—or decline to answer—may be denied under INA § 214(b). The directive applies to B-1/B-2, F, J, E, H, L, O, and P visa applicants and their dependents.
The design is a bind for anyone with genuine safety concerns: answering honestly costs the visa now, while answering no to obtain the visa puts that denial of fear into the permanent consular record, where USCIS or CBP can later use it to attack the credibility of an asylum claim filed after entry. In effect, the policy screens out and pre-impeaches potential asylum seekers before they ever reach the United States. Applicants must still answer truthfully, and coaching someone on these answers carries serious legal risk, so anyone with safety concerns should get individualized legal advice before a visa interview. Legal challenges are expected.
Read our analysis: https://kennedyvisas.com/blog-kl-insights/f/visa-interviews-new-questions-about-fear-of-returning-home
May 21, 2026 —❖— Following USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199, applicants with a pending I-485 should expect closer questioning, including why they did not consular process, and should build a documented record of positive equities such as family ties, steady employment, tax compliance, and community involvement. Anyone weighing a switch between routes, or planning international travel during a pending case, should confirm the risks first: departing the U.S. on a pending adjustment without advance parole can abandon the application entirely. For nationals of restricted countries, a travel ban can make consular processing abroad risky or impractical, which weighs toward adjusting inside the U.S.; see the Travel Bans section.
June 23, 2026 —❖— In Blanche v. Lau, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that a border officer does not need clear and convincing evidence that a returning lawful permanent resident committed a crime involving moral turpitude before treating that resident as an applicant for admission rather than as already admitted. Justice Thomas wrote for the majority; Justice Jackson dissented, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, calling the ruling a "massive blank check." Ordinarily a green card holder returning from a short trip abroad is treated as already admitted and cannot be put on the inadmissibility track without strong proof. After Blanche, a pending charge or unresolved criminal matter that may qualify as a crime involving moral turpitude is enough for an officer to reclassify the resident at the border; the government may then prove the underlying crime years later, at the removal hearing, with evidence it did not have at the time. The Court did not decide whether Mr. Lau's own offense, New Jersey trademark counterfeiting, even qualifies as a crime involving moral turpitude; it sent that question back to the Second Circuit, so he may still prevail on remand.
What the Reclassification Means in Practice
The shift from "admitted" to "applicant for admission" is not a formality; it changes which removal track applies and who carries the burden of proof. A resident treated as already admitted can be removed only on deportability grounds, where the government bears the burden. A resident treated as seeking admission faces inadmissibility proceedings, where the burden shifts to the individual to prove admissibility. At the border, the practical consequences can include having the physical green card (Form I-551) confiscated, being paroled into the country rather than formally admitted, and being placed in removal proceedings. The I-551 stamp issued in place of the card generally serves as proof of work authorization for only one year, so a resident in this posture can face employment-verification and proof-of-status problems while the case drags on. Permanent residence is not finally lost unless removal proceedings end in a final order, but the period of limbo is real.
Who Should Get Advice Before Traveling
The ruling does not make every arrest or traffic ticket a basis for inadmissibility, and it does not let officers cancel a green card without legal process. It matters most for residents whose history may involve an offense listed in INA § 212(a)(2), which includes crimes involving moral turpitude and certain controlled-substance, fraud, and theft offenses. Any green card holder with an arrest, a pending charge, a plea, a conviction, an open warrant, or an unresolved investigation should get an individualized legal assessment before international travel, and should carry evidence of U.S. ties. Anyone who is paroled rather than admitted at the border should seek counsel immediately, and should obtain an I-551/ADIT stamp or other temporary proof of status rather than relying on a parole I-94 alone.
Lawful permanent residents with arrests, pending charges, criminal convictions, or unresolved investigations should obtain legal advice before international travel. Read our analysis: Supreme Court Narrows Reentry for Returning Green Card Holders. https://kennedyvisas.com/blog-kl-insights/f/supreme-court-narrows-reentry-for-returning-green-card-holders
Updated June 2026 —❖— USCIS continues to process Form I-90 applications to renew or replace Permanent Resident Cards. Following USCIS’s 2026 strengthened screening and vetting updates, some green card renewal applications may take longer or receive additional review, especially where fraud, criminal history, identity issues, or other security concerns are identified.
Renewal of a green card does NOT automatically reopen the original grant of permanent residence, but issues discovered during adjudication may lead to further review in appropriate cases. For the separate question of whether to pursue a green card through adjustment of status or consular processing, see the Adjustment of Status section above.
Immigration parole is temporary permission from DHS to enter or remain in the United States for a specific purpose or period of time. It is not a visa, green card, admission, or permanent immigration status. Some parolees may apply for work authorization, but parole can expire, be shortened, or be terminated. If parole ends and the person has no other lawful basis to remain, the person may become subject to removal.
November 7, 2024 —❖— In State of Texas v. DHS, No. 24-cv-306 (E.D. Tex.), a federal court entered final judgment vacating the Keeping Families Together (KFT) process, which had allowed certain undocumented spouses and stepchildren of U.S. citizens to apply for parole in place without leaving the United States. The ruling was immediate and nationwide. USCIS stopped adjudicating pending Form I-131F applications, stopped accepting new Form I-131F applications, and cancelled Application Support Center appointments tied to those filings.
A pending I-131F will not be approved and does not protect a person from enforcement, so it should not be relied on as status. Parole in place for certain military families under INA § 212(d)(5) may still exist in narrow circumstances, but eligibility is limited.
January 24, 2026 —❖— A December 15, 2025 Federal Register notice moved to terminate certain Family Reunification Parole (FRP) processes and to cut short affected beneficiaries’ parole and parole-based work authorization as of January 14, 2026. On January 24, 2026, Judge Indira Talwani issued a nationwide preliminary injunction/stay in Svitlana Doe v. Noem, temporarily blocking DHS from cutting short those existing FRP grants while the litigation continues. For FRP beneficiaries affected by the December notice, parole and related work authorization remain valid through their original expiration dates for now. This does not necessarily reopen FRP for new filings or new parole grants. Affected families should confirm their own parole period, work authorization expiration date, and any pending case deadlines rather than assuming either continued protection or termination.
Updated June 2026 —❖— CHNV parole, the process for certain nationals of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, is on weaker footing than FRP. On September 12, 2025, the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Svitlana Doe v. Noem that the administration was likely authorized to terminate CHNV parole grants categorically. The ruling affected roughly half a million CHNV beneficiaries and their sponsors. Litigation over related parole issues continues, but CHNV beneficiaries should not assume parole-based protection or work authorization will remain available and should seek advice about any other immigration status, protection, or filing option they may qualify for.
Updated June 2026 —❖— If your plan depended on Keeping Families Together parole in place, that door has closed unless the law changes. An I-130 petition from a U.S. citizen spouse may still be available, but adjusting status without parole in place often requires consular processing abroad, which can carry serious risks, especially for people with unlawful presence, prior removal orders, fraud or misrepresentation concerns, criminal history, or prior immigration violations. If you have a prior removal order, are in active proceedings, or are relying on parole-based work authorization, this is not a wait-and-see situation. Anyone whose parole or parole-based work authorization is ending should get a case review before status lapses rather than waiting on a program that may not survive.
Updated June 2026 —❖— USCIS announced that, for SIJS petitions filed on or after May 10, 2026, it will no longer automatically conduct deferred-action determinations for approved Special Immigrant Juvenile applicants who cannot yet apply for adjustment of status because of visa backlogs. Special Immigrant Juvenile Status remains available for children and young people who qualify under state court and federal immigration law. A new $250 SIJS filing fee also applies.
The change matters because deferred action has often been the bridge that allowed approved SIJS youth to obtain protection from removal and apply for employment authorization while waiting for a green card. SIJS remains a powerful form of humanitarian protection, but the timing and coordination between the state court order, Form I-360 filing, deferred-action request, work authorization, and later adjustment of status now require more careful planning.
Spring 2026 —❖— Governor Wes Moore’s administration, through the Governor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs, launched Citizenship Maryland, a statewide initiative to reduce barriers to naturalization and strengthen access to citizenship services for lawful permanent residents. The program provides grant funding to nonprofit organizations for outreach, informational sessions, pre-application screenings, and referrals.
The State estimates that roughly 150,000 lawful permanent residents in Maryland are eligible to become U.S. citizens, with many located in Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties. Naturalization can provide voting rights, a U.S. passport, expanded family-petition immigration options, stronger protection against future immigration consequences, and access to additional economic and educational opportunities.
Applying for naturalization also gives USCIS another opportunity to review how permanent residence was obtained. An eligibility and risk review is a smart first step before filing.
June 2026 —❖— DHS has proposed increasing the Form N-400 naturalization filing fee from $760 to $1,330 for paper filings and from $710 to $1,280 for online filings. The proposal would also eliminate the reduced-fee option and eliminate fee-waiver eligibility for many naturalization applicants.
The proposal is NOT currently in effect. If finalized, it would make naturalization substantially more expensive, especially for lower-income permanent residents. Eligible green card holders who are already considering naturalization should evaluate eligibility, risk factors, and timing before filing.
2026 —❖— A denial under INA § 318 is different from an ordinary naturalization denial. Rather than finding only that the applicant failed to qualify for citizenship, USCIS may conclude that lawful permanent resident status was never validly obtained. Common issues include alleged fraud or misrepresentation, marriages entered into for immigration purposes, unresolved inadmissibility, or defects in the original adjustment or immigrant visa process.
In practice, the naturalization interview can become a second audit of a green card case that may have closed years earlier. Under current enforcement practices, a Section 318 denial may result in referral to removal proceedings, making the stakes far greater than a delayed citizenship application. Permanent resident status itself may be placed at risk.
The deadlines are unforgiving. A Form N-336 Request for a Hearing generally must be filed within 30 days of the denial, or 33 days if the decision was mailed. That administrative review ordinarily must be completed before seeking de novo review in federal district court under 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c), where a federal judge independently decides eligibility and may order naturalization. Anyone receiving a Section 318 Notice of Intent to Deny or denial should calendar the deadline immediately and obtain experienced legal counsel before responding.
Read our analysis:
https://kennedyvisas.com/blog-kl-insights/f/the-naturalization-interview-that-puts-a-green-card-at-risk
Updated August 2026 —❖— Where this stands now: the 30-day deadline for USCIS to decide an initial asylum-based Employment Authorization Document (EAD) application is in force, restored by a correcting amendment published July 21, 2026 and applicable back to May 29, 2026. A separate proposed rule would extend that deadline to 180 days, although no final rule has issued.
What the deadline requires. A person with a pending asylum application may file an initial EAD application once the asylum application has been pending 150 days, and that waiting period does not count delays the applicant caused or requested while the asylum application was pending with USCIS or the immigration court. Once the EAD application is filed, USCIS has 30 days to grant or deny it, subject to the rule that no EAD issues before the asylum application has been pending 180 days. The requirement sits at 8 C.F.R. § 208.7(a)(1), and a 2018 federal court order in Rosario v. USCIS, 365 F. Supp. 3d 1156 (W.D. Wash.), enforces it on behalf of a nationwide class. Most asylum applicants remain eligible to file after the 150-day waiting period.
The 30-day clock can restart or pause. If USCIS issues a request for initial evidence, the 30-day period starts over at day one when USCIS receives the response, so an application pending 15 days at the time of the request returns to zero. In contrast, a request for additional evidence pauses the period rather than restarting it, and the clock resumes at day 15 in that same example. Anyone measuring whether the deadline has run should confirm which request issued before concluding the adjudication is late.
How the deadline disappeared and returned. On April 29, 2026, DHS published an interim final rule implementing H.R. 1 at 91 FR 22952, which revised and reformatted § 208.7(a)(1). In the course of that reformatting, DHS omitted the final sentence of the subsection, which removed the 30-day requirement. The omission was not mentioned in the preamble, and commenters flagged it during the comment period that closed June 29, 2026. DHS published a correcting amendment at 91 FR 45637 on July 21, 2026, describing the omission as inadvertent and restoring the sentence as a new paragraph at § 208.7(a)(1)(v). Although the correction took effect July 21, DHS made it applicable as of May 29, 2026, the effective date of the interim final rule, and stated that there is therefore no gap in the application of the 30-day timeline.
A second change came with the restoration. The restored sentence is not identical to the one that was removed. DHS added the word "rejected" alongside "denied," so § 208.7(a)(1)(v) now reaches rejections as well as denials. Under that language, an EAD application filed after an asylum application has been rejected is itself rejected, and one still pending when the asylum application is rejected is denied. Because failure to pay the annual asylum fee results in rejection of the asylum application, nonpayment of that fee now reaches work authorization through the regulation itself. However, a federal court has temporarily blocked USCIS from applying those nonpayment consequences, so the provision is not currently operating as written. Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts v. USCIS, No. 1:26-cv-13038 (D. Mass.).
What is proposed. DHS published a notice of proposed rulemaking on February 23, 2026 at 91 FR 8616 that would extend the processing deadline from 30 days to 180 days for applications received on or after the effective date of any final rule. The same proposal would extend the waiting period to apply from 180 days to 365 days, pause acceptance of new applications whenever average affirmative asylum processing time exceeds 180 days, and add biometrics and eligibility requirements. Comments closed April 24, 2026. Although the proposal would make both initial EADs and renewals harder to obtain, it has not been finalized and is not in effect. DHS has stated that the April omission and the July correction are unrelated to that proposal and simply maintain the current regulatory text while the long-term policy is under consideration.
If you check the USCIS page, it has not caught up. The USCIS Rosario class action page still describes the 30-day deadline the way it read before this spring and says nothing about the April rule or the July correction. Because the July correction put the deadline back into the regulations and made it apply retroactively to May, USCIS is still required to decide within 30 days. If your work permit application has been sitting longer than that, the USCIS page being out of date does not change what USCIS owes you.
Updated June 2026 —❖— For Employment Authorization Document renewals filed on or after October 30, 2025, the government no longer grants new automatic extensions while renewal applications are pending, although previously issued 540-day automatic extensions remain valid if they were granted on or before October 29, 2025. Employment Authorization Documents issued on or after December 4, 2025 are generally valid for 18 months instead of five years, and filing fees have increased, including a $560 fee for an initial asylum-based work permit. Filing renewal applications as early as permitted has become increasingly important to reduce the risk of employment authorization gaps.
August 26, 2026 —❖— The State Department has paused immigrant visa interviews at United States embassies and consulates worldwide. A Department official confirmed the pause on August 25, 2026. Applicants with scheduled interviews are receiving notices that their appointments are cancelled and will be rescheduled, with new dates to follow. Notices went out at multiple posts around August 24 and 25, 2026.
What the Department says. The Department launched a global training initiative in early August 2026 and is adjusting visa appointments to accommodate the sessions. The stated purpose is in-depth training so that consular officers can evaluate every immigrant visa applicant comprehensively and consistently under the public charge provision. A Department spokesperson framed the goal as ensuring that visa applicants are not likely to become a public charge as defined under United States law and not likely to become dependent on public benefits. The Department has said it has been developing the guidance and training since early 2026. Public charge determinations consider the totality of an applicant's circumstances, including age, health, family status, financial resources, and education and skills.
The pause also does not halt adjustment of status inside the United States. USCIS continues to adjudicate Form I-485. For anyone eligible to adjust here, that is now a significant additional reason to weigh adjustment against consular processing, subject to the discretionary framework described in the Adjustment of Status section of this page.
What is not known. The Department has published no timetable for resuming interviews, no duration for the training, no count of affected appointments, and no notice on its public Visa News page setting out the scope of the pause. Kennedy Law is not aware of any docketed legal challenge to the pause as of the date of this entry.
How this fits the wider pattern. Three other State Department actions bear on the same statutory ground. On February 26, 2026, the Department published updated guidance on preventing public benefits reliance, directing consular officers to consider an applicant's broader financial and personal circumstances in assessing public charge inadmissibility. On August 5, 2026, the Department announced a public charge bond program permitting consular officers to require certain immigrant visa applicants to post a bond, which in some cases can allow an applicant to overcome an inadmissibility finding under INA § 212(a)(4). The Department describes that program as a pilot, and applicants required to post a bond are notified directly by a consular officer. A separate DHS public charge framework takes effect for adjustment of status applications on September 18, 2026.
The Department has not linked the training to the August 21 ruling vacating the 75-country immigrant visa policy described in the entry below, and it has not stated that the training prepares officers for the new DHS framework. State Department policy for immigrant visa applicants is nonetheless likely to align with that framework.
What applicants should do. Do not make travel arrangements based on an interview date that has not been reconfirmed. Check communications from the specific embassy or consulate and the case-specific appointment information rather than relying on general guidance. Keep medical examinations and police certificates current where possible, since delays of unknown length can cause them to expire. Anyone with an urgent deadline, an aging-out child, or a complicated immigration history should obtain a case review now rather than waiting for a rescheduling notice.
January 1, 2026 —❖— Presidential Proclamation 10998, signed December 16, 2025, expanded the June 2025 travel ban and related visa restrictions to 39 countries, plus individuals traveling on Palestinian Authority documents.
January 1, 2026 —❖— The ban applies only to people who are outside the United States on January 1, 2026 and do not hold a valid visa on that date. Visas issued before that date are not revoked by the proclamation. Lawful permanent residents are exempt, though they may still face enhanced screening at ports of entry. Dual nationals who travel on a passport from a non-banned country are not subject to the ban.
Unlike the June 2025 version, Proclamation 10998 removed categorical exceptions for immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, adoption cases, and Afghan Special Immigrant Visas. Those cases now depend on discretionary, case-by-case national-interest waivers unless another exception applies. Any national of a listed country who is not a lawful permanent resident should obtain legal advice before leaving the United States.
The full list of categorical exceptions appears in Section 6(b). It covers lawful permanent residents; dual nationals traveling on a passport from a country that is not designated; holders of valid A-1, A-2, C-2, C-3, G-1 through G-4, and NATO-1 through NATO-6 visas; athletes, coaches, support staff, and their immediate relatives traveling for the World Cup, the Olympics, or another major sporting event designated by the Secretary of State; Special Immigrant Visas for United States Government employees under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(D); and immigrant visas for ethnic and religious minorities facing persecution in Iran. Section 8(d) provides that the proclamation does not apply to a person granted asylum or a refugee already admitted, and does not limit the ability to seek asylum, refugee status, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture.
On case-by-case national interest exceptions, Sections 6(d), 6(e), and 6(f) permit the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, or the Secretary of Homeland Security to grant them. The proclamation specifies no form or procedure, and no agency guidance exists. Under the comparable 2017 framework, the Bureau of Consular Affairs advised that there was no separate waiver application and that the applicant should apply for the visa and present any qualifying information at the interview. That remains the practical route.
Updated August 26, 2026 —❖— Where this stands now: the 75-country immigrant visa policy has been vacated by one federal court and enjoined by another, and the government has not announced an appeal. The practical benefit to applicants has been overtaken by the separate worldwide interview pause described in the entry above, which reaches every nationality.
What the policy was. Separate from Proclamation 10998, the State Department announced in mid-January 2026 an indefinite pause on immigrant visa issuance for nationals of 75 countries, citing a review of public charge screening and financial self-sufficiency, and stating that the affected nationals were likely to rely on government support. The pause took effect January 21, 2026. It did not reach nonimmigrant visas and did not revoke immigrant visas already issued. Consular officers were instructed to refuse immigrant visas under INA § 221(g) for covered nationalities even where interviews proceeded and no other ground of ineligibility was found. The countries reached included Russia, Afghanistan, Iran, Brazil, Thailand, Morocco, and the Bahamas.
July 31 and August 7, 2026: two rulings narrowed the policy. In De Moura Gomes v. Rubio, a District of Columbia federal judge held the blanket pause unlawful because it stripped consular officers of the duty to make individualized determinations. In Sayani v. Rubio, a California federal court granted a preliminary injunction protecting applicants from having medical examinations expire because of government-imposed delays.
August 21, 2026: the policy was vacated. In Catholic Legal Immigration Network Inc. et al. v. Rubio et al., No. 1:26-cv-00858 (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jeannette A. Vargas set the policy aside under the Administrative Procedure Act as patently unlawful and in excess of the Secretary of State's statutory authority. The court held that categorically prohibiting immigrant visa issuance based on nationality is a direct abrogation of the statutory scheme, that consular officers must conduct individualized assessments and may refuse visas only upon finding an applicant ineligible, and that federal immigration law bars discrimination based on nationality.
The court rejected the government's argument that the January announcement and the implementing cable were not reviewable final agency action, an argument resting on the contention that any operative consequence arises through case-specific refusals by individual consular officers rather than from the January materials themselves. The court also refused to remand to the agency, describing this as the rare situation where remand would serve no valid purpose, because the policy's deficiencies cannot be cured given that its very basis contravenes multiple provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act in a manner going far beyond correctable procedural defects. The court further noted that the government made no showing that vacatur would substantially disrupt visa issuance or other Department operations.
Plaintiffs' counsel included the National Immigration Law Center, Democracy Forward Foundation, The Legal Aid Society, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Western Center on Law and Poverty, and Colombo & Hurd.
August 25, 2026: a second court enjoined it. In Michael Storie et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al., No. 1:26-cv-00567 (D.D.C.), Judge Amir H. Ali entered a preliminary injunction barring application of the pause to the plaintiffs, ordering the Secretary to promptly restore each plaintiff's position in the visa processing queue, and requiring adjudication within 30 days of any plaintiff application denied because of the pause. The plaintiffs are United States citizens, lawful permanent residents, and other petitioners and applicants in family and employment-based cases.
Judge Ali found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on the claim that the pause conflicts with the statute and its implementing regulations, noting that the Department directed officers to refuse visas to people otherwise eligible and to refuse them based on a characteristic Congress expressly prohibited, the applicant's nationality. He gave particular weight to the implementing directive's own text, which instructs officers to refuse visas under the pause only if they have not determined the applicant is a public charge under Congress's criteria. The court described the government's contrary argument as one that boggles the mind, reasoning that the Secretary cannot direct officers to refuse all applicants from certain countries and then claim the refusals were individualized because officers were told to cite the provision that would have required an actual individualized review.
The court also found the policy arbitrary and capricious. The Secretary completely failed to consider the effect on United States citizens and lawful permanent residents who reasonably expected their family members' applications to be decided on eligibility, and failed to explain the vast overbreadth of a pause requiring refusal even where an applicant's age, health, family status, financial status, and education leave no reasonable concern. On irreparable harm, the court credited unrebutted evidence of prolonged family separation, of lost time needed to start families or pursue employment and education, and of threats to the safety of family members in home countries.
August 26, 2026: plaintiffs moved to enforce. The plaintiffs in the Southern District of New York case filed an emergency motion asserting that the government continues to treat the vacated policy as operative and has taken no steps to implement the order. The conduct they identify includes cancelling immigrant visa interviews, directing consular officers to pause all visa adjudications, and informing applicants that the Department has not formally approved or implemented the decision regarding the visa pause.
The government's position is that the worldwide training initiative began in early August and has been in development since January, which would place its origin before the August 21 ruling. The court has not resolved the question. Kennedy Law takes no position on which account is correct, and notes only that the operative status of consular immigrant visa processing is now contested in active litigation rather than merely uncertain.
What applicants should do. A vacatur and an injunction are not self-executing at a consular post. Do not assume a case will move on its own. Where a case was refused under § 221(g) on the basis of the pause, or where an interview was cancelled, preserve the notice. The scope of relief differs between the two cases: the Storie injunction runs to the plaintiffs in that case, while the Vargas ruling vacated the policy generally. Anyone affected should obtain a case-specific assessment of which ruling reaches them and whether further action is warranted.
August 3, 2026 —❖— A final rule effective August 3, 2026 replaced the twelve-month pilot launched in August 2025 and established a permanent visa bond program. Consular officers may require certain B-1/B-2 applicants from designated countries to post a bond as a condition of visa issuance, set at the visa interview. The amounts rose from the pilot's $5,000, $10,000, and $15,000 to $10,000, $15,000, and $20,000.
June 5, 2026 —❖— Separately from the entry restrictions and State Department visa restrictions, USCIS had frozen or delayed immigration benefit adjudications for nationals of 39 travel-ban or high-risk countries, as well as individuals with Palestinian Authority-issued or endorsed documents. That freeze affected benefits such as green cards, work permits, asylum applications, naturalization applications, and other USCIS filings.
In Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS, a federal court vacated the USCIS benefits freeze and related hold policies, so USCIS must resume processing affected benefits. A partial stay issued on August 14, 2026, described below.
The ruling does NOT invalidate Proclamation 10998, the State Department visa restrictions, the 75-country immigrant-visa pause, or the visa bond program. It addresses USCIS processing of immigration benefits inside the agency system.
UPDATE — August 14, 2026: The First Circuit partly reinstated one of the vacated policies. The government appealed on June 12, 2026 and sought a stay. The appeals court upheld the district court order as to every policy except the Comprehensive Re-Review Policy, which permits USCIS to re-review benefits already approved for nationals of travel ban countries who entered the United States on or after January 20, 2021. USCIS may resume that one policy while the appeal continues. It remains barred from the others, including the suspension of adjudications and the treatment of travel-ban nationality as a negative factor in discretionary adjudications. The panel did not reach the ultimate legality of the re-review policy and held only that the government met the stay standard.
Those whose cases are still waiting at USCIS should see them moving again. However, those who already received an approval on or after January 20, 2021, and who are from one of the designated countries, now face the possibility that USCIS will reopen that approval and examine it a second time. Although the agency has not said how it will select cases, anyone in that position should keep the documents that supported the original filing accessible, since a notice may arrive without warning. The appeal continues on all four policies, so this could change again.
Read our analysis:
https://kennedyvisas.com/blog-kl-insights/f/fed-court-vacates-uscis-travel-ban-freeze-on-immigration-benefits
Effective September 2, 2025 and October 1, 2025 —❖— The interview waiver program that expanded during the pandemic has been substantially eliminated. Nearly every nonimmigrant category, including H-1B, L-1, F-1, O-1, TN, and J-1, now requires an in-person interview regardless of renewal history.
Updated August 2026 —❖— Mandatory online presence review has been extended in three waves. F, M, and J applicants were covered beginning June 2025. H-1B applicants and H-4 dependents were added in December 2025. Effective March 30, 2026, the requirement extends to K-1, K-2, K-3, R-1, R-2, H-3, A-3, C-3, G-5, Q, S, T, and U applicants, among others.
Affected applicants are expected to set social media profiles to public before the visa interview and to keep them accessible during processing. All accounts used in the past five years must be disclosed on Form DS-160, including inactive accounts. Failure to disclose an account, or limiting profile visibility, can produce delay or denial.
The reach of this policy now covers fiancés and spouses of United States citizens, religious workers, and several of the most vulnerable categories in the system, including trafficking victims under the T classification and crime victims under the U classification. In August 2026 the Department signaled a further expansion to foreign media representatives and certain Mexican and Canadian nationals.
Separately, the administration has stated that it is reviewing all 55 million people holding valid United States visas for potential violations that could support revocation or removal, including through review of social media content.
Inconsistencies between an applicant's online presence and the content of immigration filings can produce Requests for Evidence, delay, or denial, and those inconsistencies now surface across temporary and permanent filings alike. Applicants should review their own accounts before the interview rather than after a problem appears. Deleting content after filing may itself raise questions, so anyone with a specific concern should obtain advice before making changes.
August 26, 2026 —❖— Following the Supreme Court's June 25, 2026 decision in Mullin v. Doe, 609 U.S. ___ (2026), the terminations that district courts had been holding in place took effect in rapid succession. This entry states the current status of every designation, then the two separate limits that can end work authorization, then what employers and TPS holders should do.
PART ONE: WHERE EACH DESIGNATION STANDS
PART TWO: THE EL SALVADOR DEADLINE PROBLEM
PART THREE: TWO SEPARATE LIMITS ON WORK AUTHORIZATION
PART FOUR: WHAT EMPLOYERS SHOULD DO
PART FIVE: WHAT TPS HOLDERS SHOULD DO
Given the Supreme Court's ruling, the administration may now terminate any remaining designation even where conditions are demonstrably unsafe, and the remaining designations could be terminated before the end of the year.
August 18, 2026 —❖— TPS for Ethiopia is terminated. USCIS issued guidance on August 18, 2026 superseding its August 6, 2026 alert and confirming that the designation ended that day.
The path to termination. Former Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem determined that Ethiopia no longer met the conditions for designation after reviewing country conditions and consulting the appropriate agencies. See Termination of the Designation of Ethiopia for Temporary Protected Status, 90 Fed. Reg. 58028 (Dec. 15, 2025). The designation and related benefits were slated to end February 13, 2026. On January 30, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts stayed the termination in African Communities Together et al. v. Noem et al., No. 26-cv-10278-BEM (D. Mass.), and the plaintiffs won a postponement in April 2026, which the government appealed to the First Circuit.
After Mullin: Can Constitutional Claims Still Reach a TPS Termination? Following the Supreme Court's decision in Mullin v. Doe, USCIS characterized the court-ordered EAD extensions as limited relief until the lower courts aligned with that ruling. On July 24, 2026, Judge Brian E. Murphy granted an administrative stay to preserve the status quo pending resolution of the plaintiffs' renewed motion for postponement, with that stay to take effect upon resolution of the First Circuit appeal. The termination nonetheless took effect August 18, 2026.
Employment authorization. Forms I-766 with category A12 or C19 issued to TPS Ethiopia beneficiaries are no longer valid. Employers must reverify any employee who presented one and cannot continue employing a person who does not provide proof of current employment authorization. Details appear on the archived TPS Ethiopia webpage and the I-9 Central TPS webpage.
Employers who followed the superseded Ethiopia guidance should act now. The August 6, 2026 alert directed employers to enter "as per court order" in Section 1 of Form I-9 and August 19, 2026 in Section 2 and in E-Verify. That instruction is no longer operative. Employers who entered August 19, 2026 in reliance on it should reverify rather than waiting for that date.
The live legal question. The plaintiffs, the nonprofit African Communities Together and three Ethiopian TPS holders, filed an amended proposed class action in July 2026 recasting their claims as constitutional rather than statutory. They allege that the Secretary failed to meaningfully consult with appropriate agencies and cherry-picked data suggesting improvements in country conditions, and that the termination was motivated by racial animus.
The government moved to dismiss on July 27, 2026, arguing that Mullin v. Doe held the jurisdictional bar at 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(5)(A) applies to all non-constitutional claims and that plaintiffs cannot avoid it through creative pleading or clever lawyering. The government contends the plaintiffs have asserted procedural violations under a constitutional label, and that it would be extraordinary if plaintiffs could sidestep the bar merely by repackaging a statutory violation as a constitutional one. It further argues that under Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, an entitlement to nothing but procedure is insufficient to establish a protected interest under the Due Process Clause, and that the plaintiffs do not contend the Due Process Clause independently requires interagency consultation or country-conditions review. The government also invokes 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1), arguing that the word "restrain" carries independent meaning even where plaintiffs do not seek an injunction, and points out that the Supreme Court rejected a materially similar racial animus claim in Mullin.
The termination notice cited the return of roughly 3.3 million displaced people to Ethiopia as of June 2024, improved access to food and basic social services as of summer 2025, and a measles vaccination campaign reaching more than 300,000 children. Ethiopia was designated in December 2022 based on the civil war that began in 2020 and severe climatic shocks affecting access to food, water, and healthcare.
Why this matters beyond Ethiopia. Mullin v. Doe left open whether the jurisdictional bar reaches constitutional claims. This case is the first significant test of that opening, and its outcome will determine whether procedural failures in a TPS termination remain challengeable at all when framed as due process violations. If the government's Castle Rock argument prevails, the practical result is that the statutory procedural requirements governing TPS terminations become unenforceable by anyone.
What Ethiopian nationals should do now. Anyone who held TPS Ethiopia has reverted to their prior immigration status, which for most means no lawful status and exposure to removal. Do not wait on the litigation. Obtain a screening now for asylum where a timely fear claim exists, adjustment through a qualifying relative, cancellation of removal, U or T status, or an employment basis.
The plaintiffs are represented by Covington & Burling LLP, Muslim Advocates, and the Haitian Bridge Alliance.
Updated August 2026 —❖— This case has moved five times since July. Where it stands now: USCIS may not penalize asylum seekers for failing to pay the annual asylum fee, but the one-year cap on TPS work authorization is in effect and is not blocked. The emergency relief that briefly protected TPS work permits in July was dissolved on August 5. TPS holders sought emergency relief three more times over the following five days, in both courts, and were denied each time. The sequence below explains how each half of the case arrived where it did.
What the case challenges. In Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts et al. v. USCIS et al., No. 1:26-cv-13038-NMG (D. Mass., filed July 1, 2026), a coalition including the Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts, the National TPS Alliance, the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, the Service Employees International Union, and 32BJ SEIU challenged three USCIS actions implementing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. They are represented by Democracy Forward, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, and ASAP.
The three actions are a July 22, 2025 Federal Register notice establishing a one-year cap on TPS-based employment authorization, a March 2026 update to the USCIS website applying that cap to previously issued 540-day automatic extensions, and portions of an April 29, 2026 interim final rule. Before these policies, a TPS holder's employment authorization document was valid for the duration of the TPS status itself. The plaintiffs allege the agency exceeded the authority Congress granted by retroactively shortening previously extended employment authorization and by applying the new annual asylum fee to earlier periods, without following the Administrative Procedure Act's notice-and-comment requirements.
Why July 22, 2026 became a cliff. Employment authorization for many TPS beneficiaries was set to expire that day because of three interacting limits: the Act's one-year cap, the country termination actions described above, and the maximum 540-day EAD automatic extension applicable to renewal applications filed before October 30, 2025. Many TPS holders faced losing legal authority to work as of that date.
July 21, 2026: emergency relief, since dissolved as to work permits. Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton issued a temporary administrative stay one day before the cutoff, blocking both the retroactive limitation on TPS work authorization and the penalties for nonpayment of the asylum fee. He wrote that the consequences faced by plaintiffs were potentially severe, noted the government did not argue it would be harmed by a stay, and acknowledged the danger of interfering with the executive branch. The order did not suspend the fee itself. It was expressly temporary, set to hold at least through August 5, 2026, the date by which the court said it would decide whether to grant a longer stay. That is what happened on August 5, and the work authorization portion of this relief did not survive it.
August 5, 2026: the case split in two.
The asylum fee half held, and this is current law. Judge Gorton found the plaintiffs likely to succeed in challenging the portions of the April 2026 interim final rule that would reject asylum applications for nonpayment and trigger other adverse consequences, holding that those measures affect substantive rights and therefore likely required notice-and-comment rulemaking. USCIS may not reject an asylum application, terminate employment authorization, or initiate removal proceedings solely for nonpayment. USCIS may continue to charge and collect the fee.
The TPS work permit half did not hold. The court rejected each challenge to the EAD cap, holding that USCIS was not required to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking because it was implementing Congress's statutory directive in the Act, and that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success in proving the cap or its retroactive application unlawful. This decision supersedes the July 21 administrative stay. Employers should follow current USCIS guidance on TPS-based EAD automatic extensions and Form I-9 reverification.
The 30-day asylum EAD timeline was not restored. That requirement was removed by the April 29, 2026 interim final rule. USCIS later reinstated it, stating the removal was inadvertent, but the August 5 order does not compel it. Anyone filing an initial asylum-based EAD should not count on 30-day adjudication and should file at the earliest date the 150-day clock permits.
August 6 to 10, 2026: a procedural detour, then two more denials. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on August 6 and moved the First Circuit directly for an emergency stay pending appeal and an immediate administrative stay. On August 7, the First Circuit denied that motion without prejudice on procedural grounds, ruling that plaintiffs had not made an adequate request to the district court for a stay pending appeal as Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(1) requires. That order did not address the merits.
Plaintiffs returned to the district court the same day, moving under 5 U.S.C. § 705 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 62 for a stay pending appeal of the March Update, the Cap Policy, and the April interim final rule to the extent they terminate TPS work authorization, or in the alternative for an extension of the existing administrative stay until the First Circuit could rule. Citing the imminent irreparable harm TPS holders were already suffering, they asked for a decision by 9:00 a.m. on Monday, August 10, and stated that if none came they would renew their motion in the First Circuit. Judge Gorton denied the motion by endorsement on August 10, 2026.
August 10, 2026: the First Circuit declined to restore the work permit protection. With the procedural obstacle cleared, the panel refused an immediate administrative stay pending appeal, finding the appellants had not demonstrated one was warranted. It stated it would rule promptly on the broader stay request and set expedited briefing, with the government's brief due August 12 and any reply due August 14, 2026. Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts et al. v. USCIS et al., No. 26-1893 (1st Cir.). Circuit Judges Lara Montecalvo, Seth Aframe, and Joshua Dunlap sat on the panel. The appeal focuses on the retroactive application of the cap to recipients whose employment authorization had already been renewed or extended beyond one year, and on the April 2026 interim final rule. As of this update, no ruling has issued, and the cap remains in effect.
Where this leaves people.
Anyone with a pending asylum application should pay the annual fee if able, because collection has not been blocked and the current protection reaches only the consequences of nonpayment. Do not ignore a fee notice.
The one-year work authorization cap is in effect. Its immediate practical effect has been to allow employment authorization for beneficiaries of El Salvador, Ukraine, and Sudan TPS to expire. TPS holders whose EADs were previously issued or extended for longer than one year should not rely on the expiration date printed on the card, and should confirm the operative date against current USCIS guidance for their country designation. Employers should treat this as a reverification question. This cap operates independently of the country terminations described above, and either limit can end work authorization first.
Nobody should assume the litigation has permanently resolved these issues. The August 5 order is preliminary, the First Circuit appeal is pending, and the requirements may change again.
🔹Kennedy Law Beyond Immigration Note: Even after Mullin, courts continue to review whether the Executive has complied with statutory and procedural limits. Although the Supreme Court restricted judicial review of certain discretionary TPS decisions, it did not eliminate APA review of claims that an agency exceeded its statutory authority or failed to follow required procedures.
The August 5 ruling shows where that boundary now sits. The asylum fee consequences fell because the agency adopted them without the procedure the APA requires. The work permit cap survived because the court found the agency was carrying out an instruction Congress itself had written. Where Congress has spoken, procedural review has little to reach. That distinction will decide a great many immigration challenges over the next two years, and it explains why so much of the current litigation turns on what an agency added rather than on what a statute commands.
UPDATE — August 26, 2026: Every termination anticipated in this entry has now occurred. Yemen terminated July 20, 2026. Syria and Haiti terminated July 27, 2026. Burma and South Sudan terminated August 7, 2026. Somalia terminated August 14, 2026. Ethiopia terminated August 18, 2026. See the country-by-country status entry at the top of this section for current dates, automatic EAD extensions, and exceptions.
July 17, 2026 —❖— On June 25, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Mullin v. Doe that the federal statute governing Temporary Protected Status generally bars courts from reviewing the Secretary of Homeland Security's decisions to designate or terminate TPS. The decision overturned lower-court orders blocking the termination of TPS for Haiti and Syria.
The ruling had an immediate domino effect on other TPS cases. On July 17, 2026, USCIS issued updated notices concerning Syria, Burma, Ethiopia, Somalia, and South Sudan. Although court orders continued to extend certain TPS-related Employment Authorization Documents temporarily, USCIS characterized those extensions as limited relief while the lower courts aligned their rulings with the Supreme Court's decision. TPS terminations affecting Burma, Ethiopia, Somalia, South Sudan, and Syria had previously been stayed or postponed by federal district courts. Following Mullin v. Doe, those court orders no longer provide reliable long-term protection against the termination decisions. Haiti and Syria were directly before the Supreme Court. The decision cleared the way for the government to end TPS and related employment authorization for approximately 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians, subject to the remaining court proceedings and transition dates announced by USCIS.
TPS holders from Haiti, Syria, Burma, Ethiopia, Somalia, and South Sudan should not assume that a court-ordered EAD extension means their protection will continue. The validity of TPS and employment authorization depends on the country designation, the applicable court order, the original expiration date printed on the EAD, and the most recent USCIS guidance.
TPS remains active for some countries, including El Salvador, Lebanon, Sudan, Ukraine, and the 2023 Venezuela designation, but the applicable expiration and re-registration rules differ by country. Anyone relying on TPS should confirm the current designation and document-validity rules and evaluate other immigration options before protection and employment authorization end.
June 25, 2026 —❖— In Mullin v. Doe (decided with Trump v. Miot), the Supreme Court held 6-3 that the Department of Homeland Security may terminate Temporary Protected Status for roughly 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians, reversing lower-court orders that had postponed the terminations. Justice Alito, writing for the majority, held that the TPS statute bars judicial review of non-constitutional challenges to the Secretary's termination decisions. The Court also rejected the Fifth Amendment claim that ending Haiti's designation was driven by racial animus, finding the cited statements were not "overtly racial" and could rest on race-neutral grounds. Justice Kagan, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson, dissented, arguing the program likely ended unlawfully because DHS skipped the required country-condition consultations and, as to Haiti, allowed "impermissible race-based considerations" to taint the decision. Protections remain in place only until DHS completes the administrative steps to end them, expected within weeks. By holding that TPS terminations are not subject to judicial review, the June 25 decision removes the main legal check that had slowed them, which is why the case reaches well beyond Haiti and Syria.
Justice Kagan's dissent, and commentators including Adam Serwer in The Atlantic, questioned the choice to read ambiguous statutory language to foreclose judicial review of executive-branch decisions that directly affect, as in the Haiti case, the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people.
The decision also carries a warning beyond TPS. Justice Alito suggested that courts reviewing emergency relief may sometimes reach the merits without first deciding jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has long rejected that kind of "hypothetical jurisdiction," including in Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment. For immigrants, the danger is practical. Emergency orders often determine whether people keep work authorization, protection from removal, or time to pursue relief. If courts can bypass jurisdiction in emergency settings, temporary protection becomes even less secure. This part of Alito's opinion did not command a majority. Justices Gorsuch and Barrett did not join it.
Consequences of a TPS Termination: Lost Work Authorization and Removal Exposure
On the termination date, affected holders lose TPS-based work authorization and face renewed exposure to removal, unless they already hold another status or have a pending application that provides protection. Employers should note that continued employment authorization depends on the EAD's validity and the termination's effective date.
The Program Nationwide: 1.3 Million Holders, 13 of 17 Designations Ending
TPS covered roughly 1.3 million people from 17 countries as of March 2025. The administration has moved to terminate 13 of those designations; by May 2026 only five remained active (about 273,000 people across the four largest, a figure that excludes the 2023 Venezuela designation), and the five that remain, including El Salvador, are set to expire by late November 2026.
For Practitioners: Litigation After the Judicial-Review Bar; Screen Every Client for an Alternative
The decision narrows litigation options by foreclosing statutory review of termination decisions, pushing remaining challenges toward constitutional and procedural theories and toward reliance-based arguments. Reliance interests — the settled expectations of long-residing holders who built lives, families, and employment around the status — remain a live argument in some postures and at the policy level, even though they did not carry the day here. Counsel should screen every TPS client now for an independent path: adjustment through a qualifying relative, asylum if a timely fear claim exists, or another humanitarian or employment basis, and should calendar each client's termination date and any wind-down period.
For TPS Holders: Get Screened for Another Status Before Your Status Expires
Do not wait for the termination date. Get screened now for any other status you may qualify for, ideally before TPS and its work permit expire. The State Department currently rates both Haiti and Syria at Level 4, "Do Not Travel," which bears both on the danger of return and on any hardship or protection argument.
December 2, 2025 —❖— In a signed analysis, Kennedy Law argues that TPS is not only a humanitarian measure but a principled, conservative form of governance grounded in law, stability, and predictability, and that revoking a lawful protection people relied on is a betrayal of the trust good governance depends on. The piece makes a structural point often lost in the debate: TPS is not a border or "pull factor" issue, because eligibility is fixed to a physical-presence cutoff date published in the Federal Register. People who arrive after that date are categorically ineligible, so TPS stabilizes a population already screened, vetted, and integrated into the workforce rather than expanding it. Withdrawing protection from law-abiding families who followed the rules, the analysis argues, does not strengthen the system; it manufactures a new undocumented population and imposes costs on employers and communities.
The piece frames three values — protection, promise, and reliance. Protection being the stability TPS gives vetted families and the communities around them; promise being the assurance that protection will be tied to real conditions in the home country and not withdrawn abruptly or for unrelated reasons; and reliance being the principle that when a government confers lawful status, people structure their lives around TPS. Honoring that reliance is a matter of legal consistency and moral responsibility. This piece closes that justice without mercy is unsustainable, mercy without justice has no foundation, and law without regard for reliance is unworthy of public trust. Read the full analysis: https://kennedyvisas.com/blog-kl-insights/f/tps-protection-promise-reliance
Updated June 2026 —❖— Asylum applications are still being accepted, but new fees now apply. The initial Form I-589 asylum filing fee remains $100. A separate $102 Annual Pending Asylum Application Fee applies to asylum applications that remain pending for the required period. The annual fee is adjusted for inflation and may be due each year the asylum application remains pending.
Applicants should not ignore fee notices or assume that a pending asylum case will continue automatically without payment. Failure to pay the required annual asylum fee may result in rejection, dismissal, denial, or consequences for asylum-based employment authorization, depending on where the case is pending and the procedural posture.
June 25, 2026 —❖— In Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, No. 25-5, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that asylum seekers stopped on the Mexican side of a U.S. port of entry have not legally “arrived in the United States” for purposes of the inspection and asylum-processing obligations in the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Because they have not yet arrived in the United States, immigration officers are not required to inspect them or accept an asylum request at the port of entry. The decision affects individuals attempting to seek asylum at the southern border. It does NOT affect people who are already inside the United States with pending asylum applications or removal proceedings. The ruling also gives the government flexibility to revive the former border-management policy known as “metering” if it chooses.
June 2026 —❖— In Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS, a federal court vacated USCIS policies that had frozen or delayed immigration benefit adjudications for nationals of 39 travel-ban or high-risk countries, as well as individuals with Palestinian Authority-issued or endorsed documents. The ruling affected asylum applications and other USCIS benefits, including green cards, work permits, naturalization applications, and related filings.
The ruling does NOT invalidate the travel ban or State Department visa restrictions. It addresses USCIS processing inside the agency system and requires USCIS to resume adjudicating affected benefit applications unless a stay or later ruling changes the result. Whether the decision changes a particular asylum case depends on the applicant’s nationality, procedural posture, filing history, and any additional security screening.
June 3, 2026 —❖— A federal district court in the Northern District of California entered final judgment in East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, vacating the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule, commonly known as the asylum transit ban. The rule had presumed that many individuals who crossed the southern border without authorization between May 11, 2023, and May 11, 2025, after transiting through a third country, were ineligible for asylum unless they had sought and been denied protection in a transit country, obtained a CBP One appointment, or entered through a parole program.
The court held the rule conflicted with the asylum statute, was arbitrary and capricious, and was adopted without complying with required administrative procedures. Although the rule expired in May 2025, it continued to apply to individuals who entered during its effective period. Unless the decision is stayed on appeal, the rule is unenforceable nationwide.
Individuals who were denied asylum because of the transit ban—but granted withholding of removal—may have grounds to seek reconsideration, reopening, or remand of their cases.
April 28, 2026 —❖— The State Department now instructs consular officers to ask nonimmigrant visa applicants whether they have experienced persecution or fear returning to their home country. Applicants must answer truthfully. Those answers become part of the immigration record and may later be examined if the applicant seeks asylum after entering the United States. Individuals with genuine protection concerns should carefully evaluate their legal strategy before attending a visa interview.
[Proposed rules are not currently in effect, but they often signal the direction of future immigration policy and allow applicants to plan ahead.]
June, 2026 —❖— In a proposed rule titled “Employment Authorization Reform for Asylum Applicants,” DHS proposed sweeping changes to employment authorization for asylum applicants. Among other changes, the proposal would extend the current USCIS processing timeframe for initial asylum-based work permit applications from 30 days to 180 days, expand discretionary denials, add eligibility requirements, and make other significant changes affecting eligibility and renewals.
The proposal is NOT currently in effect. If finalized, it would substantially change when—and whether—many asylum applicants can obtain or keep permission to work.
Updated July 2026 —❖— The Fifth Circuit has ruled that certain noncitizens detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) must receive a bond hearing within 90 days of detention. In Sosnava Rodriguez v. Ortega, the court held that the government may not rely on mandatory detention alone to hold a person for a prolonged period without an individualized hearing. At that hearing, the government must justify continued detention based on danger, flight risk, or another individualized reason.
The decision applies in the Fifth Circuit, which includes Texas, Louisiana, & Mississippi. It does not guarantee release, and it does not end removal proceedings. But it creates an important due-process limit on the Trump administration’s expanded no-bond detention policy. People detained under this policy should speak with an immigration attorney quickly to evaluate whether a bond request, habeas petition, or other custody challenge may be available.
Updated June 2026 —❖— Removal proceedings remain active until an Immigration Judge enters a final order or otherwise closes the case. Hearing dates may be advanced, rescheduled, or added with little notice. Check your hearing information regularly through EOIR's automated system and always keep your address current with the Immigration Court. Missing a hearing will usually result in an in absentia removal order unless a legal exception applies.
June 2, 2026 —❖— In Amica Center for Immigrant Rights v. EOIR, a federal district court vacated core provisions of an EOIR interim final rule that would have restructured Board of Immigration Appeals review. The government has appealed to the D.C. Circuit, and the rules governing BIA appeals remain subject to change.
The vacated rule would have shortened the appeal deadline, required issue identification at filing, expanded single-member screening, and made summary dismissal the central mechanism for disposing of appeals. Many BIA appeals could have been screened for dismissal before the full record, transcript, and briefing were realistically available.
That matters because BIA review is not decorative. It is the administrative process that is supposed to correct immigration judge error, clarify legal standards, preserve issues, and create a meaningful record before federal court review.
The deeper problem is exhaustion. Federal court review of a removal order generally requires exhaustion of available administrative remedies, including BIA review. If the BIA becomes a tollbooth rather than a meaningful adjudicatory body, exhaustion starts to look like a procedural trap: people must pass through the Board to reach federal court, but the Board may not actually review the claims on the merits
If the rule is revived on appeal or adopted through later rulemaking, it would represent a major shift away from meaningful administrative appellate review and toward expedited finality in removal cases.
In our Law360 Expert Analysis, Kennedy Law examines the rule through Justice Stephen Breyer’s lens of judicial legitimacy: courts and adjudicatory bodies maintain public authority only when their procedures create confidence that decisions are reasoned, reviewable, and law-governed—not merely fast. The article explains why turning the BIA into a summary-dismissal tollbooth threatens both administrative exhaustion and the legitimacy of immigration adjudication.
Read our analysis:
https://kennedyvisas.com/blog-kl-insights/f/law360-immigration-appeals-rule-would-prevent-meaningful-reviewRead our analysis: Law360 – Immigration Appeals Rule Would Prevent Meaningful Review. https://kennedyvisas.com/blog-kl-insights/f/law360-immigration-appeals-rule-would-prevent-meaningful-review
June 2026 —❖— In Raycraft v. Lopez-Campos, No. 25-1415, the Trump administration filed a petition for writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to decide whether certain noncitizens who entered the United States without inspection, later lived in the United States, and were arrested in the interior may be detained without bond hearings while removal proceedings are pending.
The government argues that these individuals are “applicants for admission” subject to mandatory detention under INA § 235(b)(2)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), and that a circuit split requires Supreme Court review. The petition follows a May 11, 2026 Sixth Circuit decision in Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft holding that § 1225(b)(2)(A) did not authorize mandatory no-bond detention for the noncitizens before the court and that detention without bond hearings violated due process.
The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to take the case. If review is granted, the decision could affect whether many people arrested by ICE inside the United States can request bond while their removal proceedings are pending.
June 2026 —❖— In Abrego Garcia v. Mullin, pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, the Department of Justice argued that Kilmar Ábrego García cannot use habeas corpus in district court to block removal to Liberia or require removal to Costa Rica. The government contends that challenges to the execution of a removal order must proceed through the court of appeals or through related class litigation, not through a separate district-court habeas case.
Ábrego García’s attorneys argue that the government is using third-country removal as punishment for his successful challenge to his earlier wrongful removal to El Salvador, where he had been sent despite an immigration judge’s order barring removal there. They argue that Costa Rica has agreed to accept him and that Liberia presents unnecessary risk because he has no ties there and no assurance against onward removal.
The issue is broader than one person’s case. It reflects a growing fight over third-country removals, habeas jurisdiction, and whether a person with a final order of removal can ask a federal district judge to review where the government is trying to send him. Anyone facing possible third-country removal should get legal review immediately, especially if the proposed country was not designated in the immigration proceedings.
Updated June 2026 —❖— ICE enforcement has expanded through raids, targeted arrests, increased detention capacity, and arrests at scheduled ICE check-ins. People with final orders of removal, pending removal cases, prior missed hearings, criminal history, or prior removal orders face heightened detention risk. A scheduled ICE check-in should not be treated as routine without first reviewing the person’s immigration history, current case posture, and removal risk.
If detained, a person who fears return should say clearly and repeatedly: I am afraid to return to my country. I want to apply for asylum or protection. I want to speak with a lawyer. That request should be repeated to officers, detention staff, and immigration officials until it is documented.
June 2026 —❖— Two recent federal cases challenge expanded ICE arrest practices. In M-J-M-A- v. Lyons, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon certified classes of people arrested, or at risk of arrest, for alleged immigration violations without a warrant and without individualized pre-arrest assessments of probable cause and flight risk. The court had previously entered a preliminary injunction limiting warrantless immigration arrests in Oregon.
In Soumare v. Rife, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, plaintiffs seek class-wide relief challenging the Philadelphia ICE Field Office’s alleged abandonment of a “changed circumstances” policy. The complaint alleges that ICE had previously required an individualized determination of a material change in circumstances—such as new danger or flight risk—before re-arresting or re-detaining people who had already been released and were complying with ICE check-ins and other release conditions.
The Oregon case involves certified classes. The Philadelphia case is newly filed and seeks class-wide relief, but no class has been certified. Neither case directly governs Maryland. Together, however, they reflect a broader enforcement issue: people who were previously released, who are complying with ICE check-ins, or who encounter ICE during enforcement operations may still face arrest or re-detention depending on local ICE practices and the posture of their case.
Anyone with an ICE check-in, prior release from detention, supervision conditions, a pending removal case, or a prior removal order should review the case posture before appearing. A check-in or routine appointment should not be treated as risk-free when detention practices are changing.
Updated June 2026 —❖— Early access to counsel can affect the direction of an immigration detention case. Legal advice may affect bond strategy, release requests, asylum screening, habeas options, and whether a detained person signs documents without understanding the consequences. This is especially important before signing voluntary departure, stipulated removal, withdrawal, parole, bond, or fear-screening documents.
Federal courts continue to serve as an important check on unlawful detention, and public habeas tracking shows hundreds of immigration detention challenges filed since January 2025, with recurring judicial findings of government noncompliance and court intervention.
Read our analysis:
https://kennedyvisas.com/blog-kl-insights/f/access-to-counsel-in-early-immigration-detention-a-tro
June 23, 2026 —❖— In Pablo Sequen v. Albarran, a federal district court vacated the 2025 policies authorizing expanded immigration arrests at and around courthouses, holding that the policies were arbitrary and capricious. The court also struck down the related hold-room waiver, restoring the prior 12-hour limit on detention in short-term holding cells.
Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the lawsuit argued that federal officials violated the law when they changed their policies to allow ICE to arrest immigrants when they appear at immigration court for mandatory hearings in their immigration cases. The lawsuit also challenged ICE’s practice of holding immigrants in a makeshift detention center without beds, basic hygiene supplies, medical care, or access to legal counsel, and ICE’s arbitrary decision to waive its own 12-hour limit on detention in temporary holding facilities. This policy change was enacted in service of the Trump administration’s quota of 3,000 daily arrests, with no consideration of humane alternatives.
The decision does not prohibit all courthouse arrests; instead, it restores the earlier enforcement guidance that limited such arrests to specified circumstances. The government is expected to appeal. Immigration
Kennedy Law, LLC
1 Research Court, Ste. 450, Rockville, MD, USA.
Copyright © 2026 Kennedy Law, LLC - All Rights Reserved. DISCLAIMER: This website provides general information about immigration rules &eligibility. It is not legal advice, tax advice, or a substitute for individualized consultation. Immigration outcomes depend on your specific circumstances. For advice tailored to your case, schedule a consultation with Kennedy Law. PRIVACY POLICY: No mobile information will be shared with third parties or affiliates for marketing or promotional purposes.
We use cookies to analyze traffic. Accepting aggregates your data with all other user data.