DHS Ends 540 Day Work Permit Extensions as California Lawsuit Challenges the Rule

Thousands of immigrant workers may face employment interruptions after the Department of Homeland Security ended the automatic extension of many Employment Authorization Documents while renewal applications are pending. 

The policy change is now being challenged in federal court by H-4 spouses who argue that DHS implemented the rule without following required federal rulemaking procedures and without adequately explaining why a policy that protected workers and employers had to be eliminated immediately. 

The case could have significant consequences for H-4 spouses, adjustment of status applicants, employers, and other immigrants who rely on a valid work permit to remain employed while United States Citizenship and Immigration Services processes Form I-765 renewal applications. 

However, workers should understand that the lawsuit has not yet restored automatic extensions nationwide. Until a court blocks the rule or DHS changes its policy, affected applicants must continue following the current work’s authorization requirements. 

What Did DHS Change About Work Permit Renewals?

On October 30, 2025, DHS implemented an interim final rule ending the automatic extension of employment authorization for many applicants who file Form I-765 renewal applications on or after that date. 

Before the change, eligible applicants who submitted timely renewal applications could receive an automatic extension of their employment authorization and Employment Authorization Document for as long as 540 days while USCIS reviewed the renewal. 

Under the new rule, filing a renewal application does not automatically allow many workers to continue working after the expiration date printed on their current Employment Authorization Document. 

The official Federal Register rule ending automatic EAD extensions states that the change applies to renewal applications filed on or after October 30, 2025. DHS said the purpose of the rule was to require additional vetting and screening before granting a new period of employment authorization. 

The rule does not cancel an automatic extension that was already available through an eligible renewal application filed before October 30, 2025. It also does not eliminate separate automatic extensions provided by federal law or certain Federal Register notices, including some protections connected to Temporary Protected Status. 

Applicants should therefore confirm the filing date, employment authorization category, receipt notice, current card expiration date, and any separate legal basis for employment authorization before concluding that they must stop working. 

Who May Be Affected by the End of the 540-Day Extension?

The rule may affect many immigrants who previously relied on a pending Form I-765 renewals to avoid a gap in employment authorization. 

Affected groups may include certain H-4 spouses, applicants with pending adjustment of status cases, asylum applicants, and other immigrants whose authorization to work depends on approval of an Employment Authorization Document. 

The precise result depends on the applicant’s eligibility category. Some immigrants are authorized to work because of their immigration status, while others may work only when they possess a valid Employment Authorization Document. 

The rule has received particular attention from H-4 spouses and adjustment of status applicants because many individuals in these categories previously relied on the automatic extension while USCIS completed renewal processing. 

Workers can review the Spar and Bernstein guide to Form I-765 for additional information about applying for and renewing an Employment Authorization Document. 

Why Are H-4 Spouses Suing DHS?

On January 8, 2026, a group of H-4 visa holders filed Jane Doe 1 et al. v. United States Department of Homeland Security, Case Number 8:26 cv 00060, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. 

The plaintiffs are spouses of H-1B workers who obtained employment authorization based on their H-4 status. They argue that ending automatic extensions can force legally employed workers to stop working even when they submitted proper and timely renewal applications. 

The lawsuit alleges that DHS violated the Administrative Procedure Act by using an interim final rule without completing the ordinary public notice and comment process. The plaintiffs also contend that the policy was arbitrary and capricious because DHS did not sufficiently consider employment disruption, employer hardship, government processing delays, and the reliance interests of workers and their families. 

DHS maintains that the change is necessary to prioritize vetting, screening, public safety, and program integrity before a new period of employment authorization is granted. The Federal Register also acknowledges that some applicants may experience temporary unemployment because of the change. 

The court will ultimately have to determine whether DHS had sufficient legal grounds to make the rule effective immediately and whether the agency adequately considered the consequences of eliminating automatic extensions. 

What Is the Latest Status of the California EAD Lawsuit?

The court held a hearing concerning the plaintiffs’ request for preliminary relief on June 24, 2026. The court later entered a limited order restricting DHS from taking certain adverse immigration actions against the named plaintiffs without advance notice. 

That limited protection applies to the individuals named in the case. It does not state that the 540-day automatic extension has been restored for every affected worker in the United States. 

Earlier reports indicated that the government would respond in mid-July. The deadline was later extended. Current public docket information states that DHS must answer, file a motion, or otherwise respond to the complaint by August 7, 2026. 

As of August 4, 2026, the public docket tracker does not show a nationwide court order restoring the automatic extension. Workers should not assume that the filing of the lawsuit allows them to remain employed after their current authorization expires. 

Can a Worker Remain Employed While an EAD Renewal Is Pending?

A pending renewal application by itself may no longer provide continued employment authorization for an applicant covered by the October 2025 rule. 

When an employee’s work authorization expires, the employer generally must complete the required Form I 9 reverification process. The employee must present valid documentation establishing continued authorization to work. 

The Federal Register explains that employers may face penalties for continuing to employ a worker who cannot establish valid employment authorization. It also recognizes that affected workers may have to stop working when their documents expire, even though their renewal applications remain pending. 

A leave of absence may sometimes help preserve the employment relationship, but it does not provide authorization to perform services, receive wages for work, or continue working remotely. Workers and employers should obtain individual legal advice before deciding how to manage an expiring Employment Authorization Document. 

What Should Affected Workers Do Now?

Workers should first determine whether the new rule applies to them. The answer may depend on when USCIS received the renewal application, the category code printed on the Employment Authorization Document, the applicant’s current immigration status, the expiration date of any Form I-94, and whether a separate statute or Federal Register notice provides continued authorization. 

Applicants should generally file renewal applications as early as USCIS permits. USCIS commonly recommends filing Form I-765 renewal applications as early as 180 days before the existing card expires. Early filing cannot guarantee approval before expiration, but it may provide USCIS with more time to complete the case. 

Workers should also preserve copies of the current Employment Authorization Document, Form I-765 filing, USCIS receipt notice, delivery confirmation, immigration status documents, employer communications, and evidence of any financial or humanitarian hardship caused by the delay. 

Depending on the facts, an attorney may evaluate whether the applicant qualifies for a USCIS expedite request, another employment authorization category, an immigration status that provides work authorization, or federal litigation addressing an unreasonable government delay. 

Applicants experiencing prolonged USCIS delays can learn more about immigration mandamus litigation. A mandamus case is not appropriate in every situation, but it may provide a possible remedy when the government has failed to decide an application within a legally unreasonable period. 

What Should Employers Do About Expiring Work Permits?

Employers should identify employees whose Employment Authorization Documents will expire soon and review their Form I-9 documentations carefully. 

Human resources teams should not assume that every Form I-765 receipt notice provides a 540-day extension. They should confirm the filing date, eligibility category, expiration date, and any separate extension notice that may apply. 

Employers should also avoid immigration related discrimination. Form I-9 compliance rules generally require employers to accept valid documentation chosen by the employee from the authorized document lists. Employers should not demand a specific document or impose different verification standards because of citizenship, nationality, or immigration status. 

Businesses that employ foreign professionals can review Spar and Bernstein’s corporate immigration services and employment immigration representation for guidance concerning work authorization, visa strategy, employee retention, and immigration compliance. 

Could the Lawsuit Restore the 540-Day Extension?

Yes, but restoration is not guaranteed. 

The court could block the rule temporarily, vacate it after deciding the merits, limit relief to the named plaintiffs, or uphold the DHS policy. DHS could also revise or replace the rule through a separate administrative process. 

The timing of any decision remains uncertain. Even when plaintiffs request urgent relief, federal litigation can involve briefing, hearings, administrative records, appeals, and additional proceedings. 

Affected workers should therefore prepare under the rule that is currently in effect rather than relying on a possible future court ruling. 

How Spar and Bernstein Can Help

The loss of automatic EAD extensions creates serious consequences, but affected workers may still have legal and procedural options. 

An immigration attorney at Spar and Bernstein can review the Employment Authorization Document category, determine whether an automatic extension or statutory exception still applies, evaluate the Form I-765 renewals, assess expedite options, review an employer’s Form I-9 concerns, and identify alternative immigration strategies. 

For H-4 families, an attorney can also review the principal worker’s H-1B status, approved Form I-140, permanent residence strategy, and any upcoming extension filings. Learn more about representation from a H-1B visa attorney. 

For applicants with pending Green Card cases, counsel can evaluate whether the loss of an Employment Authorization Document affects only the ability to work or also raises concerns involving adjustment eligibility, unauthorized employment, travel, or maintenance of status. Additional information is available in the firm’s adjustment of status guide. 

Workers do not have to navigate these changing rules alone. Careful planning before an Employment Authorization Document expires may reduce the risk of an avoidable employment gap and help protect the applicant’s broader immigration strategy. 

To receive advice based on your immigration history and employment situation, schedule a consultation with Spar and Bernstein. 

Frequently Asked Questions

Did DHS eliminate every automatic work permit extension? 

No. The October 2025 rule ended regulatory automatic extensions for many renewal applications filed on or after October 30, 2025. It did not cancel eligible extensions connected to applications filed before that date or extensions separately provided by federal law or certain Federal Register notices. 

Does the California lawsuit allow H-4 spouses to keep working? 

Not automatically. Filing the lawsuit did not restore work authorization nationwide. Unless a worker has a valid Employment Authorization Document or another legal basis for employment, the worker may have to stop working when the current authorization expires. 

When is the government’s response due? 

The current public docket information lists August 7, 2026, as the deadline for DHS to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the complaint. 

Can an employer continue employing someone whose EAD expired? 

An employer generally cannot permit continued work when the employee cannot establish valid employment authorization. The employer should review Form I-9 requirements, the employee’s eligibility category, and any applicable extension before acting. 

Can an applicant request faster Form I-765 processing? 

An applicant may request expedited processing when the circumstances satisfy USCIS standards, but approval is discretionary. An attorney can help determine whether the evidence supports an expedite request or another legal remedy. 

This article provides general information and does not create an attorney client relationship. Immigration and employment authorization outcomes depend on the facts of each case and the law in effect when the matter is reviewed.