There was good cause not to undertake notice and comment with respect to the employment limits, given that the regulations merely restate the statute they implement.
Partially rejecting a motion to stay agency action under the APA as it relates to employment authorization limits outlined in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a federal district court in Massachusetts determined that a notice and comment period was unnecessary, the limits were not impermissibly retroactive, and the possibility that implementation of the legislation will create a gap in employment authorization was insufficient to find the policy itself unlawful. However, the court did grant the motion insofar as it challenged the implementation of consequences for failure to pay the annual asylum fee (Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, No. 26-13038-NMG (D. Mass. Aug. 5, 2026)).
On July 4, 2025, the One Big Beautiful Act (the Act) was signed into law. The Act addresses several aspects of immigration law, including modifying the existing frameworks for temporary protected status (TPS) employment authorization documents (EADs) and asylum applications.
Legal challenge. The plaintiffs in this case challenged three USCIS policies purporting to implement those statutory provisions: (1) a one-year cap on the issuance or renewal of TPS-based work authorization, referred to as the cap policy; (2) a March 2026 update to the USCIS website explaining that the cap...
[Sportschosun Jang Jong-ho] A total of 34.789 billion won in false National Health Insurance claims was detected at 839 health care institutions over the past four years (2022-2025). According to d...