A Court Blocked the EAD Rule for Seven H-4 Spouses. Everyone Else Is Still Under It.

On September 10, 2026, Judge David O. Carter of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California signed an order granting a preliminary injunction against the DHS interim final rule that ended automatic extensions of Employment Authorization Documents. The order was entered on the docket on September 11. It is a real ruling against the rule, and it is narrow by design.

The order reaches seven people. The court wrote that it "has elected not to issue a nationwide injunction and instead grant relief only as to the named Plaintiffs." If your employee is not one of those seven, nothing about your obligations changed on September 11. Our earlier analysis of the rule described the litigation as of September 2, before this order issued; that article now carries an editor's note.

The rule the court addressed

The interim final rule, Removal of the Automatic Extension of Employment Authorization Documents, 90 Fed. Reg. 48799 (Oct. 30, 2025), RIN 1615-AD05, took effect October 30, 2025. For renewal applications filed on or after that date, it removed the automatic extension of up to 540 days under 8 CFR 274a.13(d). Extensions already granted on renewals filed before October 30, 2025 were preserved. DHS issued the rule without prior notice and comment, invoking the good cause exception.

What the order says

The case is Jane Doe 1 v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 8:26-cv-00060-DOC-KES (C.D. Cal.), filed January 8, 2026. The plaintiffs proceed under pseudonyms. According to the order, "Plaintiffs are each H4 visa holders (spouses of H1B visa holders) who are eligible to work in the United States."

The plaintiffs first sought a temporary restraining order; the court converted that application into a motion for a preliminary injunction. Some press coverage has described the September ruling as a TRO. The order itself is captioned "Order Granting Preliminary Injunction" (ECF No. 46).

The operative language is short:

"For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 13). The Court hereby ORDERS that, as to the SEVEN (7) Plaintiffs, Defendant's October 30, 2025 interim final rule published at 90 Fed. Reg. 48799 is immediately set aside. The government may effectuate this by providing EADs to Plaintiffs that are effective throughout the pendency of this case."

On the merits, the court found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on their Administrative Procedure Act challenge to DHS's use of the good cause exception. It rejected the government's argument that advance notice would have prompted a rush of filings, writing that the government "seeks to once again advance the same 'midnight rush' theory that was rejected by the Ninth Circuit in the East Bay series of cases," and that this theory "cannot provide justification for the good-cause exception." The order also states: "The Court also certifies this matter for appeal under 28 U.S.C. section 1292(b)."

Status, stated precisely

The interim final rule at 90 Fed. Reg. 48799 is in effect. It has been set aside as to seven named plaintiffs only in Jane Doe 1 v. DHS, No. 8:26-cv-00060 (C.D. Cal.), by an order dated September 10, 2026 and entered September 11, 2026. It is not enjoined or vacated as to anyone else. Bade v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 3:26-cv-00436 (W.D.N.C.), filed June 3, 2026, remains pending; we have found no order granting interim relief in that case.

A reasoned ruling that the rule likely violated the APA matters. It gives other renewal applicants a roadmap, and more individual suits are likely. It does not give an employer a basis to keep an unlisted employee on payroll past the expiration date on the card.

What to do

1. Keep the reverification process from our earlier analysis running without change. For renewals filed on or after October 30, 2025, work authorization ends on the date printed on the EAD unless the renewal is approved first.
2. Do not accept a news report, or a copy of this order, as a Form I-9 document. The plaintiffs are pseudonymous, and the order contemplates that the government will provide them EADs; an employee who says the order covers them should be routed to counsel.
3. For employees in the H-4 population with renewals pending and a card expiring within the next two quarters, flag them now. Individual litigation is now a demonstrated path, but it takes months and is a decision for the employee and their own counsel, not the employer.
4. Recheck both dockets before relying on this status, and calendar a review for mid October.