DHS Ends the Automatic Extension of Work Permits (EADs)

Status: In effect now — Removal of the Automatic Extension of Employment Authorization Documents (DHS interim final rule, RIN 1615-AD05) (RIN 1615-AD05; FR Doc. 2025-19702 (90 FR 48799); litigation No. 8:26-cv-00060 (C.D. Cal.))

In effect for the public; set aside for seven named plaintiffs. The DHS interim final rule took effect on October 30, 2025 and applies to EAD renewal applications (Form I-765) filed on or after that date; those renewals no longer receive an automatic extension. On September 10, 2026 (order filed September 11, Dkt. 46), Judge David O. Carter of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California GRANTED a preliminary injunction in Jane Doe 1 et al. v. DHS, No. 8:26-cv-00060, finding that DHS had not justified bypassing notice-and-comment rulemaking and so failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act. The relief is limited: the court set the rule aside only as to the seven named plaintiffs, expressly declined to issue a nationwide injunction, and certified the order for immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). For everyone else the rule remains in force — renewals filed on or after October 30, 2025 still get no automatic extension — and DHS has not changed that policy: on October 14, 2026 it published a final rule (91 FR 65306), effective the same day, that responds to public comments on the interim final rule and “adopts as final, without change,” its amendments to 8 CFR 274a.13(d) and (e). A separate challenge in the District of Columbia was voluntarily dismissed on June 2, 2026.

Next step: Whether the government appeals the September 10, 2026 preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit (the district court certified it for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)), and whether the plaintiffs renew their request for a nationwide injunction — the court said it would entertain that request if the government declines to appeal. Either step could change who the rule applies to; until then, the rule stays in effect for everyone except the seven named plaintiffs. Separately, the government has moved to dismiss the case (Dkt. 44): on September 18, 2026 the court continued the hearing on that motion to October 26, 2026 (Dkt. 47), a memorandum in opposition was filed on October 5, 2026, the plaintiffs' deadline (Dkt. 48), and a reply was filed on October 9, 2026 (Dkt. 49). As of October 15, 2026 the CourtListener copy of the district court docket (which can lag the court's own) shows no notice of appeal and no order changing who the preliminary injunction covers. The October 14, 2026 final rule (91 FR 65306) re-adopts the same policy after a public comment period; this page does not predict how either side or the court will treat it.

Last editorial review: 2026-10-15 — status can change with a single court ruling. Official source.

What’s happening

In effect for the public; set aside for seven named plaintiffs. The DHS interim final rule took effect on October 30, 2025 and applies to EAD renewal applications (Form I-765) filed on or after that date; those renewals no longer receive an automatic extension. On September 10, 2026 (order filed September 11, Dkt. 46), Judge David O. Carter of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California GRANTED a preliminary injunction in Jane Doe 1 et al. v. DHS, No. 8:26-cv-00060, finding that DHS had not justified bypassing notice-and-comment rulemaking and so failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act. The relief is limited: the court set the rule aside only as to the seven named plaintiffs, expressly declined to issue a nationwide injunction, and certified the order for immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). For everyone else the rule remains in force — renewals filed on or after October 30, 2025 still get no automatic extension — and DHS has not changed that policy: on October 14, 2026 it published a final rule (91 FR 65306), effective the same day, that responds to public comments on the interim final rule and “adopts as final, without change,” its amendments to 8 CFR 274a.13(d) and (e). A separate challenge in the District of Columbia was voluntarily dismissed on June 2, 2026.

Who it affects

People who file Form I-765 to renew an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) on or after October 30, 2025 in categories that previously qualified for the automatic extension — for example, adjustment-of-status applicants (c)(9), asylum applicants (c)(8), and H-4 and L-2 dependent spouses. For these renewals, the work permit is no longer extended automatically while USCIS processes the case; if the replacement card has not been issued before the current EAD expires, employment authorization lapses and the worker generally must stop working until the new card arrives. The change applies only to renewals filed on or after October 30, 2025: EADs that were already automatically extended before that date keep their extension, and separate TPS-related automatic extensions granted through Federal Register notices are not affected. As a measure of scale, USCIS reported receiving an average of about 52,800 automatic-extension-eligible renewal EAD applications per month in fiscal year 2023. (Note: the rule does not state that 800,000 renewal applicants per year are affected; that 800,000 figure was a USCIS projection of applicants who could have faced an EAD lapse over the roughly 22-month period from May 2024 to March 2026 had the temporary 540-day extension not been in place.)

Renewal filing window

USCIS recommends properly filing an EAD renewal application up to 180 days before the EAD expires (checked October 23, 2026).

How it got here

  1. Oct 30, 2025 DHS publishes the interim final rule 'Removal of the Automatic Extension of Employment Authorization Documents' (90 FR 48799), effective the same day; EAD renewal applications filed on or after this date no longer receive the up-to-540-day automatic extension.
  2. Dec 1, 2025 The public comment period on the interim final rule closes.
  3. Jan 8, 2026 Seven H-4 dependent spouses file Jane Doe 1 et al. v. DHS in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (No. 8:26-cv-00060), challenging the rule under the Administrative Procedure Act.
  4. May 8, 2026 Judge David O. Carter converts the plaintiffs' emergency application into a motion for a preliminary injunction; briefing follows (DHS opposition May 28, plaintiffs' reply June 4).
  5. Jun 24, 2026 A hearing on the preliminary-injunction motion is set before Judge Carter; as of June 30, 2026 the court has not ruled and the rule remains in effect.
  6. Sep 11, 2026 Judge David O. Carter grants the plaintiffs' preliminary-injunction motion (order signed September 10, filed September 11, Dkt. 46): the October 30, 2025 rule is set aside as to the seven named plaintiffs only. The court expressly declines a nationwide injunction and certifies the order for immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The rule stays in force for everyone else.
  7. Sep 18, 2026 Judge Carter continues the hearing on the government's motion to dismiss from September 28 to October 26, 2026 (Dkt. 47); plaintiffs' opposition due October 5, government reply due October 12.
  8. Oct 14, 2026 DHS publishes a final rule (91 FR 65306, FR Doc. 2026-20955), effective October 14, 2026, that responds to public comments on the October 30, 2025 interim final rule and “adopts the IFR as final without change” — renewal EAD applications filed on or after October 30, 2025 still receive no automatic extension.

What to watch next

Whether the government appeals the September 10, 2026 preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit (the district court certified it for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)), and whether the plaintiffs renew their request for a nationwide injunction — the court said it would entertain that request if the government declines to appeal. Either step could change who the rule applies to; until then, the rule stays in effect for everyone except the seven named plaintiffs. Separately, the government has moved to dismiss the case (Dkt. 44): on September 18, 2026 the court continued the hearing on that motion to October 26, 2026 (Dkt. 47), a memorandum in opposition was filed on October 5, 2026, the plaintiffs’ deadline (Dkt. 48), and a reply was filed on October 9, 2026 (Dkt. 49). As of October 15, 2026 the CourtListener copy of the district court docket (which can lag the court’s own) shows no notice of appeal and no order changing who the preliminary injunction covers. The October 14, 2026 final rule (91 FR 65306) re-adopts the same policy after a public comment period; this page does not predict how either side or the court will treat it.

Official sources

This page is general information about ongoing litigation, not legal advice. A case’s status can change with a single ruling, and outcomes can turn on facts specific to each person. For advice on a specific situation, consult a licensed immigration attorney or a DOJ-accredited representative.