Immigration Lawsuit Filed To Protect H-1B Spouses

A new immigration lawsuit aims to protect the spouses of H-1B visa holders likely to lose work authorization under a new federal rule. The rule ended the automatic extension of employment authorization documents and could lead to employers removing workers from payroll due to expected delays in U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services processing. Analysts view the rule as part of the Trump administration’s efforts to reduce the labor supply by restricting nearly all elements of the U.S. immigration system. In Donald Trump’s first term, USCIS put a rule on the agenda to end work authorization for H-4 spouses and set up new policies that created enormous delays in approving work permits for the spouses. Employment authorization documents allow individuals to work lawfully in the United States. While a lawful permanent resident or naturalized citizen has the right to work, a temporary visa holder or other “nonimmigrant” must have employment authorization. To address long processing delays for employment authorization documents, or EADs, the Biden administration published a rule allowing a 540-day automatic extension if USCIS did not complete processing an EAD application before the work permit expired. The new Trump administration rule overturned that regulation for new applications. The complaint argues the rule was unlawful. Other recent actions to restrict high-skilled individuals and other temporary visa holders include imposing a $100,000 fee on the entry of new H-1B visa holders and a rule restricting international students by replacing the current “duration of status” policy with fixed admission periods. PROMOTED The Lawsuit Against The Immigration Rule Ending Automatic Extensions A complaint filed on behalf of seven dependent spouses of H-1B visa holders alleges the Department of Homeland Security published an unlawful rule on October 30, 2025. DHS published an interim final rule, which means the agency did not go through the normal notice and comment rulemaking process. Jon Wasden of Wasden Law and San Marino, California-based attorney Justin Tseng represent the plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed on Jan. 8 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division. The lawsuit’s goal, Wasden said in an interview, is for a judge to vacate the rule nationwide and for USCIS to return to automatic extensions of employment authorization documents. The complaint makes several arguments. First, the plaintiffs explain that the Biden administration’s rule on automatic extension resulted from actions taken during Donald Trump’s first term that caused long delays for processing extensions of EADs. DHS, through USCIS, established biometric requirements that plaintiffs in an earlier lawsuit alleged were designed to deprive H-1B spouses of their ability to work. MORE FOR YOU U.S. Immigration Service Issues Guidance On Who Pays The $100,000 H-1B Fee New Trump Immigration Policy: Ending The H-1B Visa Lottery Trump Deals A New Immigration Blow To International Students Frase By Forbes In 2022, DHS settled a class action lawsuit, Edakunni v. Mayorkas. As part of the lawsuit, DHS stopped the re-collection of biometrics (DHS had already collected biometrics for the applicants at least once) and returned to processing applications for an H-1B visa holder and his or her spouse at the same time. The agency also published a rule in May 2022 that provided automatic extensions up to 540 days for EADs. Second, the plaintiffs argue that the Oct. 30 interim final rule is “high on platitudinal invocations of national security concerns, but exceedingly low on a factual predicate showing a threat exists, or that the rule will address the threat.” According to the complaint, “The only factual support listed for the national security claims is a non sequitur: an individual in the U.S. pursuant to a lawful status threw a Molotov cocktail at a pro-Palestine rally, while his status extension and EAD renewal were pending.” CEO: C-suite news, analysis, and advice for top decision makers right to your inbox. By signing up, you agree to receive this newsletter, other updates about Forbes and its affiliates’ offerings, our Terms of Service (including resolving disputes on an individual basis via arbitration), and you acknowledge our Privacy Statement. Forbes is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. The plaintiffs assert there is no “nexus” explained between the Molotov cocktail and the EAD’s auto extension. “Afterall, even if EAD auto extension was not available, the cocktail thrower would have still been legally in the country and able to attend the event and commit the offense.” Third, the complaint alleges that DHS “intentionally misrepresents the process” by implying that the agency only vets foreign nationals when USCIS adjudicates a benefit. According to the plaintiffs, “In fact, DHS developed and employed the capacity to screen and vet individuals continuously via the ATLAS system and the Continuous Immigration Vetting programs, which are not discussed in the IFR [interim final rule].” Fourth, the plaintiffs write, “When, in cases like this, the agency does an about face and promulgates a rule that completely contradicts a prior regulation heightened standards are applied.” They also note, “When abandoning a rule, the agency is required to acknowledge reliance interests created by the prior rule. A rule that ignores those interests would be arbitrary and capricious.” The complaint argues failing to vacate the rule will harm the U.S. economy: “The spouses of specialty occupation workers are typically highly educated with professional ambitions and achievements that often match or surpass their H-1B spouses. The National Foundation for American Policy analysis of data indicates that nearly 90% of H4 visa holders have at least a bachelor’s degree, and almost half have a graduate or doctorate degree.” Attorneys for the spouses of H-1B visa holders hope the judge shares their views about the immigration policy that lies behind the DHS rule. “The administration’s true rationale, stripping the ability of people lawfully in the U.S. of the ability to sustain themselves, is embarrassingly obvious.” For more information, visit us at For more information, visit us at.