The U.S. District Judge in Jane Doe 1 v. United States Department of Homeland Security, 8:26-cv-00060, (C.D. Cal. Sep 11, 2026) has issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against DHS’ action as applicable to seven (7) named plaintiffs. The case concerns the government’s decision to terminate automatic extensions of employment authorization document (EAD) for certain foreign nationals applying for renewal of their employment authorization documents (“EADs” or H4 EAD).
The government had unsuccessfully argued that there is a need to bypass notice-and-comment rulemaking for this regulation because of national security concerns associated with the former auto-extension policy. The plaintiffs petitioned the court set aside agency action “solely because it might have been influenced by political considerations or prompted by an Administration’s priorities.” Dep’t of Commerce v. New York, 588 U.S. 752, 781 (2019).
The Court found that the government did not follow the proper procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act. That is why this regulation fails and that is why the Court sets it aside as to the seven named Plaintiffs.
This decision meant other affected people can also bring federal action against the government for the termination of automatic extension of H-4 EAD or other types of EAD too. Contact us if you like to discuss your EAD extension case.
Note: This is a blog post by Adhikari Law PLLC and should NOT be construed as a legal advice. Changes in immigration policies and procedures are complex and may require a consultation with an experienced immigration lawyer.
You can contact us at (+1) 202 600 7742, or email us at info@adhikarilaw.com if you will have any question on this topic. You can also reach us to learn about our legal services or complete the Form to request an Attorney Consultation.
