Recent policy news

On June 25, 2026, in a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court decided that the administration could proceed with terminating Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haiti, clearing the way to end protections and work authorization for approximately 350,000 Haitians.

Following the termination of TPS for Haiti on July 27, 2026, many long-time residents who sought safety in the U.S. now wonder what comes next as Haiti continues to face political instability, violence, and persistent economic challenges. Today, armed gangs control nearly 80-90% of Port-au-Prince—the capital—while widespread blackouts routinely disrupt essential infrastructure that forces school closures, impairs hospital operations, and ruins perishable food supplies in homes.

The impact is already being felt in communities across the country. In Springfield, Ohio, Haitian residents are being summoned to the Blue Ash Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility without a stated reason. Upon arrival, their Haitian passports are taken, and they are outfitted with an ankle monitor that restricts their movement to a 75-mile radius—in some cases, affecting their ability to work. Meanwhile, in eastern Maryland and Boston, reports of increased arrests and detentions have heightened fears among many Haitians, who worry that leaving their homes or going to work could lead to unexpected encounters with immigration authorities. Reports from South Florida show a similar impact.

With the official end of TPS for Haiti, hundreds of thousands of Haitian TPS holders, their families, employers, and communities are now facing significant consequences. Among those affected are Haitians who were sponsored by American Welcomers through the humanitarian parole sponsorship pathway known as the Processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans (CHNV). When that program was terminated last year, many Haitians sought TPS for continued safety and stability.

Many are living in fear and are retreating from public life as operations ramp up to arrest and deport Haitians. Those affected will be forced to return to a country experiencing ongoing political instability, rampant violence, and economic challenges that create serious concerns about safety and stability.

Many mixed-status families, especially those with U.S.-born children, worry that their families could be separated. At the same time, Haitian parents are concerned about safety in Haiti, and many are considering leaving their U.S. citizen children in the custody of a family member or someone they know in the U.S. Estimates report there are about 50,000 U.S.-born children to Haitian parents with TPS.

As Guerline Jozef, executive director of the San Diego-based Haitian Bridge Alliance expressed, "I think family separation is more likely… To take them back with them is not even a choice."

This situation highlights the broader impacts that changes in protected status have on mixed-status families.

Amid uncertainty, Welcomers across the country are finding different ways to support their Haitian neighbors in meaningful ways. Here are a few highlights:

In the media: Kathy Barrett, penned a moving op-ed about her son’s journey as a TPS recipient and what the end of it means for their family.

In the policy space: Pastor Mardochée Pardieu, a Haitian born U.S.-citizen, joined a group of over 100 evangelical leaders in petitioning Congress to create a legal pathway for Haitians formerly relying on TPS.

Congress can still play a role in determining the next steps for affected Haitian families by extending protections through legislation.

In April 2026, the House of Representatives passed a bipartisan bill to extend protections for Haitian TPS holders until April 2029. The bill now awaits action in the Senate. As the Senate prepares to vote, you can help shape what happens next.

Contact your Senators, and ask them to extend TPS for Haitians →

Whether you’ve supported a newcomer as a sponsor or welcomed newcomers in other ways, you understand the meaningful impact welcoming can have in your community. Join our Haiti affinity group to support Haitians, connect with others, share ideas, and learn from experts and partners about emerging needs and opportunities. The group meets for an hour once a month.

Register to learn more about the Haiti affinity group →

TPS for Ukraine expires Oct. 19, 2026, unless it is extended or redesignated by or on Aug. 20. As of this writing (morning of Aug. 20, 2026), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has not made an announcement on whether to extend, redesignate, or terminate this status. However, USCIS issued an alert on Aug. 14 automatically extending employment authorization documents (EADs) through Oct. 19, 2026, for eligible Ukrainian TPS beneficiaries with pending EAD renewal applications. Right now, approximately 100,000 Ukrainians living in the U.S.—many who initially came through the Uniting for Ukraine (U4U) program—rely on TPS to work legally, support their families, and live in safety without being forced to return to an active war zone.

There are three possible scenarios:

1. DHS announces an extension and/or redesignation of Ukraine TPS by Aug 20: Protections under this status would extend for another 6 to 18 months. If DHS redesignates the program, Ukrainians who arrived after Aug. 16, 2023, and are currently protected under humanitarian parole would become eligible to apply for TPS for the first time. Current TPS holders will need to reapply, but automatic interim work permit extensions can ensure that jobs are retained while new permits are produced.
2. DHS announces the termination of Ukraine TPS by Aug. 20: Protections would end on Oct. 19, 2026 (or by a new date after Oct. 19, set and announced by DHS). Work permits would expire on Oct. 19, immediately leaving 100,000 Ukrainians without legal status or the right to work, if they have not applied for an alternative status.
3. DHS does not make an announcement by Aug. 20: If DHS does not announce a decision by Aug. 20, by law, TPS should be automatically extended for six months, making the new deadline April 19, 2027, for those who already have TPS status. However, USCIS must still issue formal employer guidance on work permit verification for those six months in order for Ukraine TPS holders to legally work in the U.S. beyond Oct. 19. Additionally, if DHS does not make a decision by the deadline, there would be no redesignation, meaning Ukrainians who arrived in the U.S. after the current eligibility cutoff would remain ineligible to apply for TPS.

DHS recently missed its deadline to make a determination on TPS for El Salavador, which is set to expire on Sept. 9, 2026. Because federal law requires at least 60 days notice prior to expiration, the missed deadline should trigger an automatic six-month extension. A similar dynamic could unfold with TPS for Ukraine as its renewal decision approaches.

TPS provides Ukrainians essential protection that allows them to live and work legally in the United States until conditions in their home country improve. Since 2022, large-scale Russian strikes in Ukraine continue to be a near-daily occurrence. For many, returning to Ukraine is simply not an option, as years of devastating conflict have destroyed their homes and local infrastructure. This vital program not only protects families, it also strengthens the communities that Ukrainians now call home and have enriched through their contributions.

As Oksana, a former Ukrainian refugee who is now a U.S. citizen and sponsor, recently shared:

“TPS has been a literal lifeline, providing Ukrainians with immediate safety, legal work authorization, and relief from the constant terror of violence in their home country. This stability allowed them to secure housing, enroll their children in school, and build a peaceful, self-sufficient life within our community. Extending TPS is absolutely critical, because forcing them to return now would mean sending them back into severe danger, dismantling the secure foundation they have fought so hard to establish.”

You can help ensure Ukrainian families maintain their legal status and stability in the U.S. Reauthorizing TPS is critical to ensuring they can continue to live, work, and remain safe without fear of displacement.

Ask your representative in Congress to recommend to DHS that it immediately extend and redesignate TPS for Ukraine →

Whether you’ve supported a newcomer as a sponsor or welcomed newcomers in other ways, you understand the meaningful impact welcoming can have in your community. Join our Ukraine affinity group to support Ukrainians, connect with others, share ideas, and learn from experts and partners about emerging needs and opportunities. This group meets for an hour once a month.

Register to learn more about the Ukraine affinity group →

President Trump signed two new executive orders to restrict birthright citizenship after the Supreme Court rejected his previous, broader policy. The first order seeks to exclude certain groups from automatic citizenship at birth, including children born to foreign officials, designated foreign enemies, or individuals engaged in fraudulent activity to obtain citizenship. The second order seeks to increase existing restrictions on “birth tourism” by denying entry to individuals who travel to the U.S. primarily to give birth.

For more than a century, birthright citizenship has provided a consistent legal standard by making citizenship dependent on where a child is born rather than the immigration status of their parents. On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court upheld this standard by rejecting the administration’s January 2025 executive order that sought to limit birthright citizenship for certain individuals.

Although the new executive orders are narrower in scope, they face distinct legal realities. While the president holds broad executive authority to control who enters the U.S., long-standing Supreme Court precedent dictates that virtually anyone born on U.S. soil is automatically a citizen, regardless of their parents’ immigration status or purpose for visiting. Therefore, the travel restrictions may be legally stronger, while the citizenship restrictions will likely face court challenges.

Under a new DHS rule, affirmative asylum applicants (people not currently in removal proceedings who apply for asylum after entering the U.S.) are no longer guaranteed interviews prior to entering the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). This means that DHS will let federal officers refer certain asylum applicants directly to an immigration court based solely on their written record, without first interviewing them to make their case for asylum.

Though the new rule could improve efficiency in reviewing applications for asylum and reducing backlogs, many immigration advocacy groups caution it could lead to higher denial rates for legitimate claims. The American Immigration Council notes:

“The affirmative asylum interview has long served as a safeguard ensuring that applicants have a meaningful opportunity to explain their claims before facing removal proceedings. Eliminating that opportunity risks sending individuals with potentially meritorious asylum claims directly into an already overburdened immigration court system, where the process is more adversarial, more complex, and often far more difficult to navigate.”

The initial interview is often the only opportunity asylum applicants have to clarify inconsistencies, explain filing delays, and make their case before they are sent to an immigration court.

If you know someone affected by this rule, check out this resource for helpful guidance.

Reports indicate that more than 50 parents and spouses of active-duty U.S. military members have been detained. Reports also estimate that six have been deported and one has self-deported, while at least eight remain in immigration custody.

Spouses and parents of U.S. military members have a legal pathway to permanent residency because of their affiliation with the military member. For decades, they have been given protection from deportation. However, reports reveal that more than 50 parents and spouses of active-duty military members have been detained for months while applying for legal status, even as military recruiters continue to advertise family immigration benefits to prospective enlistees. Many of these service members have had to delay deployments or take leave to handle their family’s legal proceedings or take care of their children.

Under a new interim rule effective Aug. 11, 2026, DHS gives U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) the authority to mandate online-only filings for certain immigration forms including select green card petitions, citizenship requests, asylum claims, employment authorization applications, and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) filings. This rule creates a two-step requirement before any form becomes online only:

• The form must be available online for at least 180 days.
• USCIS must provide at least 60 days notice before mandating digital submission.

Though online filing isn’t new, the major change is that it will no longer be optional for many forms designated by USCIS. Hundreds of thousands of applicants who file by mail could be affected. Currently, applicants may request a waiver for a fee of $25 if they cannot file online, for example, because they lack access to technology. Requests are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Fee waivers will continue to be available for humanitarian applicants.

Though the interim rule took effect on Aug. 11, public comments are still being accepted through Oct. 13, 2026.

What happened

On June 25, 2026, in a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court decided that the Administration could proceed with terminating TPS for Haiti, clearing the way to end protections and work authorization for approximately 350,000 Haitians.

According to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) website, TPS for Haiti ended on July 27, 2026. This leaves many Haitian families uncertain about what comes next after years of safety and community in the U.S., as their country remains in crisis.

For Haitians like Myrlande, who has lived in the U.S. for 16 years, the end of TPS means losing the life she has built here. She first came to the U.S after sustaining severe injuries in the devastating 2010 earthquake in Haiti—she lost both of her legs because of those injuries. Since then, she has rebuilt her life here. Losing TPS means losing her work, her home, and the stability she has worked hard to create. Returning to Haiti poses serious challenges, especially in her hometown of Port-au-Prince, where ongoing violence has created dangerous conditions.

Why it matters

With the official end of TPS for Haiti, hundreds of thousands of Haitian TPS holders, their families, employers, and communities are now facing significant consequences. Those affected will be forced to return to a country experiencing ongoing political instability, rampant violence, and economic challenges that create serious concerns about safety and stability.

For sponsors like Kimberly Snelgrooes of Texas, this is deeply concerning. Kimberly welcomed Sherlie and Kevenson, a Haitian couple, to the U.S. through sponsorship in 2023. Kim has expressed her concern about the couple’s return to a country in a continuing humanitarian crisis, where even returning to their family homes could pose serious safety risks.

As the Supreme Court decision was being debated, she shared:

“We gave these people protection; they invested in our communities. Rolling back the welcome we extended [is] a betrayal of the values we stand for and… a denial of the contributions these families make every day.”

The impact extends beyond individuals and their families. Haitian TPS holders are a meaningful part of the U.S. workforce, contributing an estimated $5.8 billion to the U.S. economy, paying $1.5 billion in taxes each year, and working in critical industries such as healthcare, hospitality, food services, and other essential sectors. The loss of Haitian workers will also affect employers and communities that depend on their contributions. The impact may be especially significant in places like south Florida, which is home to one of the largest Haitian communities in the U.S. and where an estimated 90,500 Haitian TPS holders live.

What you can do

Following the Supreme Court’s decision, Congress can still play a role in determining the next steps for affected Haitian families by extending protections through legislation.

In April 2026, the House of Representatives passed a bipartisan bill to extend protections for Haitian TPS holders until April 2029. The bill now awaits action in the Senate. As the Senate prepares to vote, you can help shape what happens next.

Contact your Senator today, and ask them to extend TPS for Haitians →

What happened

Earlier this year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) introduced new policies based on 2025 legislation, including the so-called Big Beautiful Bill Act. The changes included:

• New annual asylum fee: Requiring asylum-seekers to pay a yearly fee to keep their applications active. If they failed or were unable to pay, USCIS could reject their pending asylum claims and revoke their work permits.
• Removal of 30-days work permit processing requirement: Eliminating a decades-old requirement that USCIS process initial work permit applications for asylum-seekers within 30 days.
• Retroactive TPS work authorization rules: Retroactively applying stricter work authorization rules to immigrants staying in the U.S. under Temporary Protected Status (TPS), by limiting automatic extensions for work permits to a maximum of one year (or the remaining duration of the country's TPS designation, whichever is shorter). Legal challengers argued that USCIS implemented these changes without following the required federal notice-and-comment process.

Last week, a federal court issued a temporary administrative stay that partially blocked enforcement of these rules while the case moved forward.

Specifically, the court:

• Blocked penalties on asylum fees: USCIS may still request the fee, but it cannot reject asylum claims, revoke work permits, or initiate deportation solely for nonpayment.
• Kept the removal of the 30-day rule in place: The court did not require USCIS to resume processing initial work permits for asylum seekers within 30 days.
• Paused retroactive TPS cutbacks: The court temporarily restored prior work permit expiration dates for TPS holders, preventing sudden lapses in work authorization.

The ruling directly impacts tens of thousands of immigrants—including asylum-seekers and TPS holders from El Salvador, Sudan, and Ukraine—and their employers.

Why it matters

The decision provides temporary relief for affected immigrants and their employers by keeping current work permits in place while the court considers whether USCIS properly implemented the new rules. For many immigrants, a work permit is what allows them to support their families, pay rent, maintain stability, and contribute to their communities while their cases are pending. Employers also rely on these workers to fill critical roles, maintain operations, and support their workplaces and communities.

What happened

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) finalized a new rule that brings back a stricter “public charge” test for people applying for a green card or visa. The rule takes effect on Sept. 18, 2026.

Under the current policy, DHS mainly looked at whether someone used public cash assistance benefits in considering whether to grant their green card or visa application. Under the new policy, the government will instead use a “totality of the circumstances” model where an applicant's overall situation will be assessed. This includes factors such as their age, health, finances, education, and whether they have used certain non-cash public benefits, such as Medicaid, SNAP (food stamps), or housing assistance.

Who is affected

The new rule only applies to people applying for a green card from inside the U.S. using the updated required Form I-485, as well as people applying for immigrant visas at U.S. consulates abroad.

This rule does not apply to everyone: humanitarian groups—including refugees, asylees, and victims of abuse or human trafficking—are exempt from the test by law.

Why it matters

The rule may influence whether some families choose to use public benefits they are legally eligible to receive because those benefits can now be considered as part of an applicant’s overall circumstances. It may also affect families that already used public benefits and are now worried how it will affect their green card application. At the same time, it gives immigration officers more discretion to consider a wide range of factors, making the outcome of immigration applications less predictable.

What happened

In testimony before the House Appropriations Committee hearing, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the U.S. is considering resettling 1,100 Afghan allies into third countries, such as Botswana, Malaysia, and war-torn Congo, rather than resettling them in the U.S or forcing them to return to Afghanistan where they face likely reprisal from the Taliban. These highly vetted individuals and families—many of whom are former combat translators, Special Operations partners, and direct family members of active-duty U.S. military personnel—have been stranded in Camp As Sayliyah in Qatar for over a year due to an ongoing suspension of refugee resettlement in the United States.

Why it matters

During the 2021 U.S. withdrawal from Kabul, the Biden administration used an emergency legal process called humanitarian parole that quickly welcomed Afghan allies to safety in the U.S. However, more than 1,000 Afghans currently in Doha were unable to escape and get their applications processed during the brief 21-day window—some were trapped in hiding, stuck in rural provinces, or unable to get past Taliban checkpoints.

Five years later, these highly vetted allies and their families—like 15-year-old Zahra who is living in Camp As Sayliyah—are still waiting to see that commitment fulfilled. The administration is in talks with third countries, such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Malaysia, to accept these individuals and families as refugees. Advocates reject this approach, arguing that the United States promised to provide safety to the families who risked their lives standing alongside the U.S., and these third countries face their own crisis and turmoil that place families in greater danger.

What happened

On May 21, 2026, USCIS released a new policy memorandum that changes how some individuals can apply for a green card while in the United States. Under the new guidance, individuals applying for a green card within the United States through a process called “adjustment of status” (Form I-485) will no longer be able to apply from within the country unless the applicant meets “extraordinary circumstances.” While subsequent agency clarifications confirmed this is not an outright ban and applications will be reviewed case-by-case, the underlying policy heavily encourages officers to push family, employment, and diversity visa applicants toward processing abroad at a U.S. embassy or consulate. Under this framework, officers will weigh both positive and negative factors in each case. Officers are being directed to conduct more detailed background checks and apply heightened scrutiny. Simply meeting the legal requirements or maintaining a clean record is no longer a guarantee of approval as final decisions are subject to the individual officer's discretion.

Why it matters

For years, those with legal status within the U.S. have been able to apply and complete the green card application process in the U.S. This included individuals married to U.S. citizens, those with work and student visas, refugees, and political asylum-seekers, to name a few. Under this new policy, individuals who have lived, worked, and raised their families here for years could be forced to leave their families and livelihoods, return to their home country, and apply for status—and it is unclear how long they would be waiting for their application to be processed or a final decision to be made on it. For some, this means returning to a country with unsafe conditions—countries that include Afghanistan, Sudan, Iran, and Syria—and no active U.S. embassy because of strained diplomatic relations.

This new policy will deeply impact families, destabilize local communities, and create critical labor shortages for the employers who rely on these individuals.

What happened

During a congressional hearing, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin stated that ICE recently updated its officer training and rewrote the curriculum ahead of efforts to hire and train 10,000 deportation officers with funding from Congress. These new changes will go into effect on July 1. The agency stated last year that training was streamlined to accommodate an influx of new officers, and it denies allegations that the streamlined process cut corners to train officers.

President Trump also approved a $70 billion bill to fund ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) through the end of his term, which moved forward through budget reconciliation despite months of opposition from Democrats.

Why it matters

Updated officer training, combined with $70 billion in funding and resources for ICE and CBP, will allow the agencies to increase their ranks and expand removal procedures. As the administration’s efforts expand on this front, some individuals who fled persecution and sought refuge in the United States are being removed to third countries because they cannot be sent back to their home countries. For example, two women who fled violence in Iran are among those who could be deported to the Central African Republic—a country that the U.S. Department of State identified as a high travel advisory due to severe security risks. This is just one example of the administration negotiating agreements with several other countries to accept deportees.

What happened

Earlier this month, U.S. District Chief Judge John McConnell Jr., a federal judge in Rhode Island, struck down three policies that affected some newcomers: a freeze on immigration benefits for individuals from 39 countries (many of them African, Asian, Latin American, and Middle Eastern countries), a nationwide pause on asylum adjudications, and a mandate to re-review immigration applications approved after Jan. 20, 2021. The judge ruled that the actions of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) were arbitrary and contrary to the law, exceeded its authority, and violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The USCIS policies were originally enacted after the 2025 National Guard shooting in D.C., in which U.S. Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom was killed and Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe was critically injured. It is likely the U.S. government will appeal this decision.

Why it matters

In a major victory for impacted applicants, Judge McConnell’s ruling brought an end to months of uncertainty. By determining that the policies were "arbitrary," the court highlighted the administration’s failure to provide the necessary legal justification or evidence required to implement such sweeping changes. The court’s decision offers relief to many, who will now likely see progress on their pending applications. However, the lengthy freezes created a backlog on an already overwhelmed system, which means that processing benefits and applications will take additional time and further delay critical approvals for those who rely on them.

What happened

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently announced a regulatory proposal that would limit employment authorization (EADs) for certain individuals, including humanitarian parolees. The changes proposed would reduce the current work permit duration for certain populations and require employer E-Verify participation (which currently remains optional for employers), biometrics, and a higher standard of review.

Why it matters

While our team is still analyzing the full scope of the proposal, it is clear that the new restrictions in this proposed rule would deeply impact certain newcomers, including those here on humanitarian parole and deferred action, and their ability to work and provide for their family. If passed, the shorter duration and increased restrictions could create greater instability and force workers out of the formal economy. This also impacts employers, causing businesses to abruptly lose the employees they depend on and triggering widespread labor shortages.

Your voice is a powerful tool to stop this. By law, federal agencies must review and respond to every significant or unique public comment before a rule becomes final. When enough people speak out about the harm a policy will cause, the government may reconsider its impact and feel pressured to change or scrap the plan.

The public can submit an official comment regarding these changes before they are implemented. We encourage you to submit a public comment here on or before Aug. 4, 2026.

What happened

A separate rule taking effect May 29, 2026, changes how long TPS-based work permits, known as Employment Authorization Documents (EADs), can remain valid.

Under the new policy, TPS-related work permits will generally be limited to one year or the remainder of the country’s TPS designation period, whichever is shorter.

This means many TPS holders will need to renew their work authorization more frequently than before.

Why it matters

TPS holders already navigate a system marked by periodic renewals, court decisions, and changing country designations. Shortening work authorization periods adds another layer of uncertainty for workers, employers, and families.

More frequent renewals can mean:

• higher filing costs
• additional paperwork
• greater risk of employment interruptions if processing delays occur
• more time spent navigating government processes

For employers, these shorter renewal cycles can also create administrative burdens and workforce instability. For workers, even temporary gaps in authorization can jeopardize jobs and financial security.

Most TPS holders are contributors to their communities and workplaces who are attempting to remain fully compliant with immigration rules. Critics of the new policy argue that increasing renewal frequency without improving processing reliability could create unnecessary instability for people who are already following the legal process.

What happened

Beginning May 29, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will implement new fees and enforcement rules for people with pending asylum applications under Form I-589.

Under the new policy:

• New asylum applications still require a $100 filing fee (for applications filed on or after July 22, 2025).
• Applicants with pending asylum cases will also face a recurring annual fee of $102 for every year their case remains unresolved (increased by USCIS for FY 2026 to adjust for inflation).
• If the annual fee is not paid within 30 days of notice, USCIS may reject the pending asylum application, deny or revoke related work authorization, and in some cases initiate removal proceedings for individuals who do not have another lawful immigration status.

This policy was published on April 29, 2026, and will be implemented starting on May 29. USCIS stated that applicants will receive notices explaining when payment is due and how to pay. However, immigrant advocates and legal aid organizations have already raised concerns about inconsistent notifications, lost mail, outdated address records, and confusion around the payment process. If these administrative and communication challenges are not corrected before these policies are implemented, it could leave otherwise compliant people vulnerable to irreversible penalties.

Why it matters

Most asylum-seekers are trying to follow the rules, maintain legal status, and work lawfully while their cases move through an already backlogged immigration system. But compliance becomes difficult when people do not receive clear or timely notice about new requirements.

In recent months, legal aid groups and immigration attorneys have reported cases where applicants only learned about the new fees after checking USCIS websites or speaking with lawyers, not through official notice.

USCIS has taken steps to clarify how payments work and how notices are supposed to be issued. But advocates say that there are still concerns about individuals receiving notifications and being able to meet the 30 day payment deadline. When enforcement carries consequences as serious as losing work authorization or facing removal proceedings, even small communication failures can cause individuals who are trying to comply with the law to fall out of status because of technical or bureaucratic breakdowns outside their control.

For detailed instructions on new fees and how to submit payment, check out this guide from the legal experts at ASAP.

What happened

The Supreme Court heard arguments on April 29, 2026, on whether the federal government can terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haiti ahead of schedule. TPS for Haiti has been in place since the 2010 earthquake, allowing Haitians to live and work legally in the United States.

The case comes as the Department of State continues to designate Haiti under a Level 4: Do Not Travel advisory due to ongoing risks including kidnapping, violent crime, civil unrest, and limited access to healthcare.

During arguments, the administration maintained that decisions about TPS fall within the executive branch’s authority—particularly because of their connection to foreign policy—and should not be broadly reviewed by courts. Challengers argued the termination violated administrative law, pointing to concerns that the government failed to properly assess current conditions in Haiti and did not follow required procedures. They also cited evidence raised in lower courts suggesting potential racial bias.

Several justices wrestled with how much oversight courts should have in these decisions. Some raised concerns about limiting executive power, while others questioned whether the administration’s position would leave any meaningful checks in place.

A decision is expected late June or early July 2026.

Why it matters

The outcome will directly impact roughly 350,000 Haitian TPS holders who have built lives, careers, and community in the United States. Many, like Maryse Balthazar—a nursing assistant who has lived in the U.S. for 16 years after losing her home in Haiti to first the 2010 earthquake and then gang-related violence—play essential roles in sectors like healthcare. If the Supreme Court sides with the administration, individuals like Maryse could face deportation to a country still grappling with severe instability, and gang violence. Families, including those with U.S. citizen children, could also face separation.

Beyond Haiti, the stakes are even higher: The ruling could shape how TPS is applied, and potentially terminated, for other countries in the future.

What happened

The federal government is expanding how it conducts background checks for immigration applications. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has been directed to perform more detailed fingerprint-based background checks through the FBI for a wide range of immigration applications, including green cards, asylum, and citizenship.

CBS News reported that under the new internal guidance, officers may re-run security checks for applications already in progress, even if they were previously completed, and are instructed not to approve cases until updated results are received. This change follows a February executive order aimed at increasing data sharing across federal agencies to improve security outcomes.

Why it matters

While the expanded security checks are intended to strengthen security, they could cause significant delays and uncertainty for applicants, especially for those already present in the U.S. For many, this may lead to gaps in legal status or disruptions in daily life—including challenges to accessing healthcare, renewing driver’s licenses, or qualifying for other benefits available to legal residents of the United States.

What happened

Congress recently resolved a months-long standoff over funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which has been tied up in broader disagreements over immigration enforcement for immigration agencies. In late April, lawmakers passed a compromise bill restoring funding for most DHS operations, including the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Coast Guard, and the Secret Service. But funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) was handled separately.

The broader DHS shutdown ended after lawmakers agreed to fund ICE and CBP through the reconciliation process, a legislative path that allows for advancement without the need for bipartisan consensus or the standard 60-vote Senate threshold. This follows significant prior investments through the 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which allocated $75 billion to ICE and $65 billion to CBP.

Why it matters

Despite earlier uncertainty, DHS operations remain fully funded, and both ICE and CBP continue to operate at full capacity. The shift to a separate funding track may also signal how immigration enforcement funding debates could unfold—and be resolved—in the future.

What happened

In a separate development, a federal judge in Boston ruled that the administration cannot stop processing immigration applications for people from countries included in the travel ban.

The policy had placed applications on hold for designated countries, affecting roughly 200 plaintiffs seeking green cards, asylum, and work permits. Judge Julia Kobick ruled that the policy is likely unlawful and unfairly targets people based on their country of origin.

The judge issued a preliminary injunction, temporarily halting enforcement of the policy, but only for the 200 plaintiffs directly involved in the lawsuit. This case is one of several legal challenges currently underway, including one where a group of 14 green card holders from Haiti, Venezuela, and Cote d’Ivoire sued the federal government over their ability to become U.S. citizens, despite meeting all the requirements.

Why it matters

While limited in scope, the ruling provides immediate relief for the individuals involved and signals that courts may be willing to challenge similar policies. It could also influence the outcome of related cases moving forward.

What happened

The Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday in a landmark case challenging an executive order that would end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are undocumented or in temporary legal status, such as humanitarian parole or H-1B visas. Lower courts have consistently blocked the policy, finding that it likely violates the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.

At the heart of the case is how to interpret the Constitution’s Citizenship Clause. The administration argued that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States should be read narrowly—applying only to children of citizens or permanent residents. Challengers pointed to long-standing precedent, especially the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark decision, which affirmed that birth on U.S. soil confers citizenship regardless of parents’ status.

Several justices appeared skeptical of the administration’s argument and pressed on how far its interpretation could stretch. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the leap from historically narrow exceptions—like children of diplomats or occupying enemies—to excluding a much broader population of people living in the U.S. without permanent status, suggesting those examples may be too limited and “idiosyncratic” to support such a sweeping change. Justice Neil Gorsuch pushed on the internal consistency of the administration’s test, asking how it would apply to groups like Native Americans and whether it would unsettle established understandings of citizenship. Justice Brett Kavanaugh focused on precedent and congressional intent, noting that Congress has repeatedly used the same constitutional language after the Court’s 1898 Wong Kim Ark decision—raising doubts about whether lawmakers ever intended to narrow birthright citizenship in the way the administration now proposes.

At the same time, some justices also challenged the challengers’ position. Justice Samuel Alito suggested that modern illegal immigration presents circumstances that did not exist when the 14th Amendment was adopted, raising questions about how much weight historical practice should carry. Others probed whether the challengers’ reading leaves any meaningful limits on who is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, and how to interpret that phrase in today’s immigration system.

Why it matters

Birthright citizenship has been a cornerstone of U.S. law since the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. The amendment was originally ratified to guarantee that the formerly enslaved would be recognized as full citizens. It states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

It is foundational to how the United States defines who gets to be American.

A ruling in favor of the administration could fundamentally change who is recognized as American, potentially leaving some U.S.-born children without citizenship and at risk of deportation from the only country they’ve known. A decision is expected by the last week of June.

What happened

In a rare bipartisan move, House lawmakers reached the threshold needed to force a vote on extending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitians through January 2029. The vote passed the House and moved to the Senate. It still needs to pass the Senate and be signed into law by the president before taking effect.

This comes amid a parallel legal battle: The administration is also seeking to terminate Haiti’s TPS designation early. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on April 29, and is expected to provide its decision by late June or eary July.

Why it matters

TPS allows people from countries facing crisis to live and work legally in the U.S., but it does not provide a pathway to permanent residency. Roughly 350,000 Haitians currently rely on this protection. Without an extension, they could lose legal status and face deportation to a country still grappling with political instability, violence, and the long-term impacts of natural disasters.

The bipartisan support behind this effort is significant—and reflects growing recognition across party lines of the stakes for Haitian families.

What happened

A federal court in Massachusetts ruled this week that the government unlawfully terminated humanitarian parole for hundreds of thousands of people who had entered the U.S. legally using the CBP One app. The terminations, carried out via a mass email without individual review, are now reversed, and the government has been ordered to restore parole status.

The ruling applies to a specific group: individuals who scheduled entry through CBP One, were paroled into the U.S. between May 2023 and January 2025, and had their status revoked in April 2025. It does not apply to people who entered through other parole programs like Uniting for Ukraine or the Processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans.

Why it matters

For those affected, the decision restores protection from deportation and eligibility to work after months of fear and instability. It also reinforces an important legal principle: The government cannot make sweeping immigration decisions affecting hundreds of thousands of people without individualized review or due process.

Questions remain about how people will be notified and how quickly their status will be restored, making access to legal guidance especially important in the coming weeks.

What happened

After imposing a sweeping pause on asylum decisions in late 2025—affecting nearly 4 million pending cases—the administration has begun processing applications again for most countries.

However, the freeze remains in place for applicants from about 40 countries designated as “high risk,” including Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, and many countries in sub-Saharan Africa.

Why it matters

For many asylum-seekers, this partial restart brings long-awaited progress after months of uncertainty. During the pause, applicants were left in limbo—often unable to work legally, plan for the future, or move forward with their lives.

At the same time, the continued freeze for certain nationalities raises serious equity concerns. Some of the people facing the greatest danger in their home countries remain stuck without answers, underscoring how uneven access to protection has become.

What happened: As part of the administration’s efforts to impose stricter entry requirements, the U.S. Department of State has directed consular officers to indefinitely suspend the issuance of immigrant visas for people from 75 countries deemed “at high risk of public benefits usage.”

This suspension means that individuals from these countries who were seeking to immigrate to the U.S.—often after navigating a lengthy and complex legal process—will not receive visas while the policy remains in effect.

The affected countries include:

Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia, Brazil, Burma, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Dominica, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Republic of the Congo, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, and Yemen.

People who already possess immigrant visas, including those currently outside the U.S., are not affected.

Why it matters: This visa suspension closes safe and legal pathways for families who have already navigated a lengthy and complex immigration process. This includes Afghan Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) applicants who risked their lives to serve alongside U.S. forces.

By halting visas, even after approval, the policy leaves families in limbo, separates loved ones indefinitely, and undermines confidence in the fairness and reliability of America’s legal immigration system.

(Feb. 2026)

What happened

On Feb. 18, 2026, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a memo stating it intends to arrest refugees who have been in the United States for more than one year and have not yet applied for lawful permanent residence (a green card).

The memo was submitted in federal court as part of ongoing litigation over Operation PARRIS, an enforcement effort in Minneapolis where Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detained refugees in their communities and transferred them out of state while re-examining their cases. A federal court has paused those arrests while the lawsuit continues.

The new memo suggests DHS may seek to expand that approach nationwide.

What the memo states

Under current law:

• Refugees are admitted to the U.S. after extensive vetting.
• One year after arrival, they are expected to apply for a green card.
• After five years as a green card holder, they may apply for citizenship.

In the memo, DHS asserts that if a refugee has not applied for a green card and completed an interview after one year, the government may:

• Locate and arrest that person,
• Detain them for an unspecified period of time,
• Revisit not only their green card eligibility but also their original refugee claim, and
• Ultimately either grant permanent residence or place them into removal proceedings.

Importantly, the memo does not set a time limit on detention.

It is still unclear how broadly or quickly DHS may attempt to implement this policy, and how courts may ultimately rule on its legality.

Why it matters

Refugees are among the most heavily vetted groups entering the United States. Before arrival, they undergo years of background checks, interviews, biometric screening, and medical exams.

They are admitted lawfully and begin rebuilding their lives with legal protections in place.

Applying for a green card after one year is part of that pathway, but in practice, refugees often face real barriers:

• Limited access to affordable legal assistance
• Language barriers
• Financial hardship
• Medical or mental health challenges
• Confusion about paperwork requirements

If arrest and detention become enforcement tools for those who have not yet applied, the impact could be significant. An estimated 100,000 refugees nationwide may not have adjusted status yet.

Beyond legal questions, there are real human consequences. Refugees, by definition, fled persecution. Being detained, separated from family, or asked to re-prove their past trauma can be destabilizing and retraumatizing.

At this time, much remains uncertain—but preparation and information matter.

If you are a refugee or supporting someone who may be affected

Here are three practical steps you can take now:

1. Connect with legal support. If eligible, refugees should apply for lawful permanent residence. You can search for a qualified immigration attorney using the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) directory.

2. Make an emergency preparedness plan. Use this guide developed by Community Sponsorship Hub, Welcoming Initiative for Newcomers, and Alight to help families prepare important documents and contact plans in case of detention.

3. Offer steady support and connection. Review our guide on helping newcomers cope in unsettling times to provide emotional reassurance and practical care.

What happened: On Feb. 2, a federal judge issued a stay, or postponement, delaying the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitians. The ruling prevents the program from expiring as scheduled and keeps current protections in place while a legal challenge moves forward. More than 300,000 Haitian newcomers have sought safety in the U.S. since 2010 after fleeing widespread violence, political instability, natural disasters, and economic collapse. Many now face serious safety risks if forced to return to Haiti.

While the pause is in place, Haitian TPS holders retain work authorization and access to the benefits provided under the program. The court will next consider whether the U.S. government is legally permitted to terminate TPS for Haiti, taking into account ongoing conditions in the country.

Why it matters: TPS for Haiti was first designated more than a decade ago in response to devastating earthquakes and persistent political instability, and it has been repeatedly renewed as conditions remain unsafe. Over the years, Haitian newcomers have built lives in the U.S., raising families, working, and contributing to their communities.

Although the court’s stay offers short-term relief, it underscores how fragile these protections remain. For communities like those in the Texas Panhandle that have welcomed Haitian neighbors, this uncertainty means prolonged instability and the potential loss of friends, coworkers, and community members who have become like family.

What happened: In January, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) launched Operation PARRIS (Post-Admission Refugee Reverification and Integrity Strengthening), an initiative aimed at reexamining the cases of thousands of refugees who were resettled in the U.S. in the last five years and have not yet received their green cards. These refugees had already undergone extensive vetting and background checks prior to being admitted into the U.S. Beginning in Minnesota, federal immigration agents began detaining lawfully resettled refugees—some of whom were transferred to detention centers in Texas before being released.

In response, a coalition of refugees and advocacy organizations filed a class action lawsuit challenging the arrest and detentions.

On Jan. 28, a federal judge issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) blocking the arrest and detention of lawfully resettled refugees in Minnesota under Operation PARRIS while the lawsuit proceeds. The court also ordered the prompt release of all refugees detained in Minnesota. This ruling applies only to Minnesota and is not a final decision on the case.

Why it matters: Operation PARRIS stems from a directive issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) calling for the re-review of more than 200,000 refugees who arrived during the Biden administration. While enforcement began in Minnesota, DHS has signaled plans to expand the operation elsewhere. The court’s intervention affirms a critical principle: refugees who entered the U.S. through safe, legal pathways and were formally resettled should not be subject to arbitrary detention. While the TRO provides urgent relief for families who were living in fear, refugees and the communities that support them continue to face uncertainty, trauma, and an unpredictable enforcement landscape.

What happened: On Jan. 31, a federal judge in Minnesota denied a request from state and local officials to temporarily halt Operation Metro Surge, a large-scale federal immigration enforcement effort in the Twin Cities, while litigation challenging the operation continues.

State and local leaders argued that the expanded Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) presence exceeded federal authority, caused fear and disruption in local communities, and lacked a legitimate law enforcement purpose. The judge ruled that the plaintiffs did not meet the legal threshold required to pause the operation at this stage.

As a result, the increased ICE presence in the Twin Cities may continue while the broader lawsuit moves forward.

Why it matters: Operation Metro Surge has already had significant impacts on families and neighborhoods. Detentions may continue for individuals who have sought safety in the U.S., including people with pending asylum cases—such as 5-year-old Liam and his father, who were detained despite having active applications.

Even as this enforcement continues, there is growing support from elected officials and community leaders across the country for greater accountability, transparency, and compassion in immigration enforcement, with the latest statement coming from dozens of national security and immigration policy experts who served during Republican administrations. This case highlights the tension between expanded federal authority and the well-being of local communities.