Federal court ruled that agency reinterpretations of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA)
Federal court ruled that agency reinterpretations of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) restricting noncitizens’ access to public benefits, including postsecondary education programs, are unlawful.
On September 21, 2026, Judge Mary S. McElroy of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island ruled that revised agency interpretations of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) which sought to restrict the ability of noncitizens to access public benefits are unlawful.
Title IV of PRWORA prohibits certain classes of noncitizens from receiving various federal, state, and local public benefits, with agencies granting exceptions for numerous programs, including those that constitute “widely available services,” such as some postsecondary education programs. In July 2025, several agencies, including the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, the Department of Labor, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, issued notices purporting to reinterpret PRWORA to apply to a multitude of programs that had previously been excluded in an attempt to restrict noncitizens’ access to public benefits programs. Plaintiffs, twenty states and the District of Columbia, challenged the new interpretations as unlawful and won, safeguarding noncitizens’ receipt of previously excluded public benefits from the limitations of PRWORA.
To read more about the case, see here.
DOJ filed complaints against three more states and the District of Columbia
DOJ filed complaints against three more states and the District of Columbia challenging laws and regulations providing in-state tuition and financial aid to resident-students despite being undocumented
On September 10, 2026, The Department of Justice filed complaints against three additional states (Hawaii, Arkansas, and Utah) and the District of Columbia challenging laws which provide in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants, bringing the total number of lawsuits to 25.
In the Department of Justice’s press release announcing the lawsuits, the Trump Administration claimed that such laws "seek to undermine federal law by placing illegal aliens over citizens in clear defiance of Congress’s commands" because they "unconstitutionally discriminate against U.S. citizens who are not afforded the same reduced tuition rates or scholarships, create incentives for illegal immigration, and reward illegal aliens with benefits that U.S. citizens are not eligible for, all in direct conflict with federal law."
Six of these lawsuits have resulted in permanent enjoinments prohibiting the laws from being executed, finding that such laws which provide reduced tuition to undocumented students are unconstitutional. Lawsuits in other states are pending.
See our previous posts regarding other similar lawsuits here.
Massachusetts Department of Public Health issued recommendations for hospitals and healthcare service providers interacting with federal immigration officers
The Massachusetts Department of Public Health has issued guidance regarding how hospitals and healthcare service providers should interact with Federal Immigration Officers.
This guidance is in accordance with Executive Order 650: Protecting Access to Essential Services and Keeping Massachusetts Communities Safe, which was issued by Governor Maura Healey on January 29, 2026. The Executive Order directs the Executive Office of Health and Human Services to “work with public and private entities engaged in providing healthcare services to the public (“Entities”) to ensure they have guidance and policies in place for: Staff interacting with Federal Immigration Officers; and [r]equiring a Judicial Warrant or Judicial Order for entry into nonpublic areas,” among other things.
To read more about the guidance issued by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, see here.
Compilation of healthcare resources for immigrants
Cambridge Health Alliance (CHA) has published a compilation of healthcare-related resources for immigrants on their website with the goal of “mak[ing] it easier to find care and other local services.”
Such resources include an explanation of the rights of immigrants seeking healthcare in Massachusetts, a list of community resources by the Massachusetts Office for Refugees and Immigrants, and a Know Your Rights flyer made by the Massachusetts Immigration and Refugee Advocacy Coalition (MIRA) explaining immigrants’ rights in multiple languages.
To access the compilation of healthcare resources, see here.
Update on D/S Elimination Final Rule – lawsuit enjoins Final Rule implementation
On September 14, 2026, U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking the Department of Homeland Security’s Final Rule eliminating Duration of Status, which was set to take effect on September 15.
The court order prohibits DHS and USCIS from implementing and enforcing it while the case continues. Consequently, the Duration of Status framework is able to continue throughout the country. The court found that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their argument that the Final Rule is arbitrary and capricious, and that permitting it to take effect would result in immediate and irreparable harm. It is expected that the government will appeal the preliminary injunction.
For more information on the lawsuit and to keep up with the litigation, check the NAFSA website and the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration website.
See our previous post discussing the Final Rule and its implications here.
Partner Mary Walsh to Present at NAFSA Region XI Conference in Bretton Woods, NH on October 27 - 29, 2026
Iandoli, Desai & Cronin's very own Mary Walsh, Esq., will be presenting two sessions at the NAFSA Region XI Conference in Bretton Woods, NH on October 27-29, 2026:
RFE/NOIDs 3.0: Distract, Delay, and Deny (Thursday, October 29th at 8:30am)
Beyond the Regulations: CPT Decision-Making in the Gray Areas (Thursday, October 29th at 9:45am)
For more information about the Conference, see here.
USCIS registration mandate: noncitizens must carry proof of registration (valid status) at all times, especially for domestic travel
Due to ICE’s new practice of detaining certain noncitizens traveling on domestic flights, we wish to remind all noncitizens of the USCIS registration mandate. As of April 2025, all foreign nationals (including Permanent Residents) fourteen years old and older must register with USCIS and carry proof of their registration at all times. This is now particularly important for domestic flights, as individuals might encounter ICE not only at security but also at the gate.
Most foreign nationals with valid immigration status were already registered as part of their visa and I-94 issuance process. The most common proof of registration includes I-94s (either printed from the CBP website or at the bottom of an I-797 Approval Notice), green cards, and EADs.
DOS publishes Final Rule making the Visa Bond Program permanent
On Monday, August 3, 2026, the State Department published a Final rule that made the B-1/B-2 Visa Bond Program permanent. Under the program, certain nonimmigrants are required to post a bond of up to $20,000 in order to receive a B-1/B-2 visa. See our previous reporting on the Bond Pilot Program here.
Visa Bulletin update
The Department of State publishes a monthly Visa Bulletin which operates as the “waiting list” for green cards (immigrant visas), with an individual’s Priority Date serving as their place in line. The Bulletin identifies all immigrant visa “preference” categories and indicates whether a backlog exists for that category. When a backlog exists, an individual in that category may not apply for a green card (or “adjust status”) until their Priority Date becomes “current.” A priority date is current when it is earlier than the date listed in the Visa Bulletin. The Bulletin lists family-based (“FB-”) preference categories and employment-based (“EB-") preference categories. These categories are further separated into two charts: the Final Action Dates chart and the Dates for Filing chart. The Final Action Dates chart indicates whether an individual can expect USCIS to make a decision on their application soon, whereas the Dates for Filing chart, if USCIS chooses to use it that month, indicates whether an individual may file their adjustment application and receive the benefits associated with having a green card application pending with USCIS.
In September 2026, USCIS will be using the Dates for Filing chart for family-based preference categories and the Final Action Dates chart for employment-based categories.
This month, there was no movement in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or Other employment based employment categories. See the September 2026 Visa Bulletin here.
If you have questions about planning, please schedule a consultation with one of the attorneys at Iandoli, Desai & Cronin (info@iandoli.com).
August 2026 update on the first $100k H-1B fee
After the First Circuit refused to reimplement the Trump Administration’s first $100,000 H-1B tax, USCIS updated its website to acknowledge that that $100,000 tax is not currently in effect. However, USCIS also stated that they intend to collect the $100,000 in any applicable cases if the Trump Administration later wins the lawsuit. A level of risk therefore remains for petitioners to seriously consider prior to submitting H-1B petitions with a request for consular processing, which could later trigger the $100,000 tax.
See our previous posts on the first $100,000 tax here.