A group of spouses of H-1B visa holders has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government after the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) ended the practice of automatic extensions of work permits for eligible foreign workers whose renewals are pending. The legal challenge — brought in federal court — argues the policy change was unlawful and threatens the employment and financial stability of thousands of immigrant families.
What the Rule Change Does
Until late 2025, foreign nationals with valid work permits could continue working automatically if they filed a timely renewal application — a safety net that prevented gaps in employment authorisation while renewal processing took place. This automatic extension often lasted up to 540 days, a benefit that was particularly important for families facing long delays in immigration processing.
However, a new interim final rule issued by DHS in October 2025 eliminated those automatic extensions. Under the revised policy, foreign workers — including spouses of H-1B visa holders known as H-4 visa holders — must now obtain fresh approvals rather than rely on an automatic grace period. This means that if a renewal application is still pending and the original work permit expires, the worker could lose authorisation and be forced off the job.
Who Is Filing the Lawsuit
The lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. Central District Court of California by several H-4 visa spouses of H-1B workers who say the change jeopardises their ability to continue working. Plaintiffs include individuals employed in sectors such as accounting, office services and banking, and some have reportedly already lost their jobs due to the rule’s implementation.
Legal Arguments Against DHS
The plaintiffs argue that the DHS rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it was introduced without proper notice and public comment and lacked a valid justification for bypassing standard regulatory procedures. The complaint describes the change as “arbitrary and capricious,” urging the court to set aside the rule and restore the automatic extension provision.
Critics of the policy contend that DHS cited broad national security and public safety concerns to justify the change, but did not provide solid evidence that automatic extensions posed any risk that could not be addressed through existing screening processes. They argue that the agency had the ability to vet individuals for security concerns without removing a longstanding work authorisation benefit.
Broader Impact and Concerns
Immigrant advocates and employer groups have raised alarms about the rule’s impact beyond H-4 spouses. The policy also affects other categories of immigrants, including asylum seekers and refugees who rely on continuous work authorisation while their renewal applications are pending. Observers expect that tens of thousands of foreign workers could be pushed out of the U.S. labour force if the rule remains in effect.
What’s Next
The case — which challenges a core component of work authorisation for dependents of high-skilled workers — highlights ongoing tensions in U.S. immigration policy. As the lawsuit progresses, courts will weigh not only the legal procedures used by DHS but also the broader implications for immigrant families, labour markets, and employers who depend on a stable workforce.
