Image Source: Reuters, U.S. District Court Judge Nathaniel Gorton

A federal judge in the United States has temporarily halted the Trump administration's attempt to revoke work permits from tens of thousands of immigrants, marking another significant judicial setback for the administration's sweeping immigration agenda.

In a ruling delivered on 21 July, U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton in Boston barred the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) from enforcing portions of new immigration policies that would have stripped employment authorisation from asylum seekers and beneficiaries of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) who failed to comply with newly introduced requirements.

The decision follows a lawsuit filed by immigrant rights organisations and labour unions, who argued that the government had unlawfully implemented the changes without complying with mandatory rulemaking procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

The disputed policy

The challenged measures stem from immigration reforms enacted under a law passed by the Republican-controlled Congress in July 2025. Among other changes, the legislation introduced application fees for asylum seekers and imposed new restrictions on employment authorisation for individuals protected under the TPS programme.

USCIS subsequently adopted policies providing that immigrants who failed to pay the new fees or satisfy the revised requirements could lose their work permits and face additional penalties. The agency also sought to apply certain provisions retroactively to TPS holders from El Salvador, Sudan and Ukraine.

The plaintiffs argued that these measures threatened the livelihoods of thousands of immigrants who are legally permitted to remain in the United States while their immigration status is resolved.

Court finds likely procedural violations

Judge Gorton concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in showing that USCIS acted unlawfully by introducing the policies without first providing the public with notice and an opportunity to comment, a procedural safeguard required under the APA for most federal regulations.

The court also questioned the agency's authority to apply the statutory amendments retroactively to existing TPS beneficiaries where Congress had not expressly authorised such action.

Although the judge declined to prevent USCIS from collecting the newly introduced asylum application fees, he prohibited the agency from revoking work permits or imposing related penalties on immigrants who fail to pay those fees while the litigation proceeds.

The temporary order will remain in place pending further proceedings, with the court expected to determine in early August whether broader injunctive relief should be granted.

Administrative law at the centre of the dispute

While the case arises from immigration policy, its legal foundation rests primarily on principles of administrative law.

The Administrative Procedure Act requires federal agencies to follow prescribed procedures when adopting regulations, including publishing proposed rules and allowing interested parties to submit comments before the rules take effect. Courts may invalidate agency actions that fail to comply with these procedural requirements or exceed statutory authority.

In this case, the plaintiffs contend that USCIS bypassed those obligations by implementing significant policy changes without public consultation. They further argue that the agency unlawfully extended the reach of the 2025 legislation by applying its provisions to individuals whose immigration protections had already been granted.

The court's preliminary findings suggest that these arguments raise sufficiently serious legal questions to justify temporarily suspending enforcement of the challenged policies until the dispute is fully determined.

Another legal hurdle for Trump's immigration agenda

The ruling is the latest in a series of judicial decisions scrutinising immigration measures introduced during President Donald Trump's second administration.

Federal courts have repeatedly been called upon to determine whether executive agencies have acted within the limits imposed by Congress and whether immigration reforms comply with constitutional and statutory requirements. Recent cases have addressed issues ranging from deportation policies to the termination of humanitarian protections for migrants.

Source: Reuters