Your American future, secured with confidence.

In a decision that directly affects families here on visas, the Supreme Court has upheld birthright citizenship — striking down the executive order that would have denied U.S. citizenship to some children born on American soil. For anyone on a temporary visa, this lifts a real cloud of uncertainty.

What happened

On June 30, 2026, in Trump v. Barbara, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees automatic citizenship to virtually all children born in the United States. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion; Justice Samuel Alito was among three dissenters.

What the order had tried to do

The executive order, issued on the first day of the administration’s second term, sought to deny U.S. citizenship to babies born here to parents who had entered the country unlawfully — and, critically for many of our clients, to parents living and working here lawfully on temporary visas. That second category swept in families on E-2, L-1, H-1B, and similar statuses.

Why the Court ruled this way

The Court grounded its decision in the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and its own 1898 precedent, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which held that a child born in the U.S. is a citizen regardless of the parents’ immigration status. Roberts’s opinion traced the rule of citizenship by birth back through American and English legal tradition.

Why this one is different — it’s settled

Unlike the lower-court rulings we’ve written about this year, this is the final word. A 6–3 decision from the Supreme Court on the meaning of the Constitution isn’t a “for now” — it settles the question. Birthright citizenship stands.

What this means for you

If you’re in the U.S. on a temporary visa — E-2, L-1, H-1B, J-1, or similar — and you have or are expecting a child born here, that child is a U.S. citizen, full stop. The uncertainty the order created for visa-holding families is gone. If you held off on a child’s U.S. passport or Social Security application, or on family decisions, because of it, you can move forward. Book a consultation if you’d like to talk through how this fits your family’s longer-term immigration plans.

This post is general information, current as of when it was written — not legal advice, and no substitute for talking to an attorney about your own case. Reading this doesn’t make us your lawyers. Please get advice on your specific situation before you act.

USCIS has quietly walked away from its appeal in an EB-1A case it lost — leaving in place a court ruling that says the agency’s “final merits” step was never properly adopted. If you’re pursuing an extraordinary-ability green card, it’s a hopeful signal. But read the fine print before you celebrate.

What happened

In Mukherji v. Miller, a federal district court in Nebraska overturned the denial of an EB-1A petition, holding that USCIS’s “final merits determination” — the subjective second step the agency uses to deny petitions even after an applicant meets the regulatory criteria — was never properly adopted through notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act. USCIS appealed to the Eighth Circuit, then, around June 10, 2026, withdrew that appeal — leaving the ruling standing in that case.

What the case was about

The petitioner, a journalist, met five of the ten EB-1A criteria — nearly double the three required. USCIS conceded that, then denied her anyway at the “final merits” stage, concluding she hadn’t shown she was among the top of her field. Applying the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision, which reins in agency power, the court questioned whether USCIS could impose a second evaluative step that isn’t grounded in the statute or its own regulations.

Why the withdrawal matters

By dropping the appeal rather than fighting, USCIS avoided a higher-court ruling that could have struck down its “final merits” approach across an entire circuit — or wider. That it backed down in the Eighth Circuit, generally regarded as conservative, suggests the agency knows this framework is legally exposed after Loper Bright. In short, the tool most often used to deny strong EB-1A and EB-1B cases is now on shakier ground.

The catch — what it does not mean

This was a single district-court decision, and the withdrawal makes it binding only in that one case — not nationwide. USCIS has not rescinded the “final merits” policy and is expected to keep using it, including denying petitions that clearly meet three or more criteria. Don’t assume the standard just got easier. DHS may even try to lock the step in through a formal regulation — though that, too, would be open to challenge.

What this means for you

If you’re weighing or filing an EB-1A — or an EB-1B or O-1 built on similar evidence — the takeaway is measured but real. Build the petition to win on a full, holistic review, and assume USCIS will still apply final merits. But if you’re denied on a vague “final merits” rationale despite clearly meeting the criteria, Mukherji hands you a meaningful new argument on appeal or in federal court. Book a consultation and we’ll assess where your case stands.

This post is general information, current as of when it was written — not legal advice, and no substitute for talking to an attorney about your own case. Mukherji v. Miller is a district-court decision that is not binding nationwide, and agency practice may change. Reading this doesn’t make us your lawyers. Please get advice on your specific situation before you act.

A federal judge has thrown out the $100,000 fee on new H-1B petitions. If you're an H-1B worker — or an employer sponsoring one — this is real relief. But it isn't over, and the "for now" matters.

What happened

On June 8, 2026, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston vacated the $100,000 H-1B fee the administration rolled out last September. He found it amounted to an unlawful tax — the executive branch can't invent a six-figure charge that Congress never authorized — and that the way it was imposed broke the Administrative Procedure Act.

A reminder of what the fee was

Late last September, a proclamation tacked a $100,000 charge onto new H-1B petitions (those filed or approved for consular processing), up from the usual couple thousand dollars in filing fees. For a lot of employers — hospitals, universities, startups, smaller companies — that number simply priced H-1B hiring out of reach.

Why the ruling is broad

The case was brought by a coalition of 20 states, led by California and Massachusetts. The judge didn't just pause the fee for those states — he vacated it entirely, finding the administration acted outside its authority and went around Congress. He also called it arbitrary, noting the government ignored how hard the fee would hit healthcare and education. So, for now, the fee is off the table nationwide — for all employers, not just the ones who sued.

The catch — this is genuinely unsettled

Here's the part not to gloss over: a different federal judge, in Washington, D.C., looked at the same fee and upheld it. A split like that between courts makes an appeal — and very likely a trip to a higher court, possibly the Supreme Court — close to certain, and the government has already said it intends to appeal. The fee is gone today, but "today" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. If the appeal goes the other way it could come back, and it won't truly be settled until a final ruling from an appeals court or the Supreme Court.

What we're telling clients

If you're an employer, this is meaningful relief on new H-1B sponsorships — but don't treat it as permanent. Build some flexibility into your hiring plans and budgets in case the fee returns while this works its way up on appeal. If you're an H-1B worker, especially heading into cap season, talk to counsel before making any move that assumes the fee is gone for good — and be careful with international travel right now, since the rules can shift while you're outside the country. Book a consultation and we'll walk through how this affects your specific situation.

This post is general information, current as of when it was written — not legal advice, and no substitute for talking to an attorney about your own case. This is a fast-moving area with conflicting court rulings, and the decision is expected to be appealed. Reading this doesn't make us your lawyers. Please get advice on your specific situation before you act.

A federal judge has thrown out the policies that froze green cards, work permits, and citizenship for people from the travel-ban countries. It's the broadest win yet against those holds — and if your case has been stuck in limbo, it matters.

What happened

On June 5, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, in Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS, ruled that four USCIS policies were unlawful and vacated them — wiped them off the books. Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. found the policies broke the Administrative Procedure Act and set them aside.

What got struck down

The court tossed four related policies that had built up around the travel ban:

• A blanket hold that froze every benefit application — green cards, work permits (EADs), naturalization — filed by anyone from the 39 travel-ban countries.
• A nationwide hold on asylum and withholding-of-removal cases, regardless of where the applicant was from.
• A re-review policy that forced USCIS to reopen and second-guess benefits it had already approved for people from those countries who entered on or after January 20, 2021.
• A rule telling officers to treat nationality from a travel-ban country as a "significant negative factor" when exercising discretion — the same discretionary squeeze we wrote about in our last update.

Why this one is bigger than the earlier wins

Other courts had already paused these holds, but mostly just for the specific people who sued. This ruling goes further: it vacates the policies themselves, so they're off the table nationwide. On paper, that means USCIS has to resume adjudicating the cases it had frozen — all of them, not just the plaintiffs'. For applicants who did everything right — filed on time, paid the fees, did biometrics, sat for interviews — and then watched their cases sit for months while they lost jobs and work authorization, that's a real opening.

Why the court ruled this way

The judge stuck to administrative law and didn't reach the constitutional questions. In short: USCIS claimed power it doesn't have, never gave a real explanation for the holds, ignored how heavily people were relying on timely decisions, and leaned on a national-security rationale the court called pretextual. The court pointed out that these applicants hadn't done anything wrong — they were singled out by where they happened to be born.

The catch — don't celebrate too early

This may not be the last word, and we'd caution against reading too much into it just yet. Given how aggressively this administration has pushed its enforcement agenda, we expect the government to move quickly — most likely asking a court to stay the order so the holds snap back into place, and/or appealing to the First Circuit. If a stay is denied, USCIS may start working through held cases in the meantime, but even that could prove temporary depending on what the appeals court — or ultimately the Supreme Court — does. The agency could also try to re-issue the policy with a more developed record. In short, the status of frozen cases could shift again, possibly more than once, in the coming weeks.

What this means for you

If you've had a green card, work permit, naturalization, or asylum case stuck because of these holds, this ruling may finally open the door to a decision — and timing could matter if a stay is coming. Now is the moment to get your file in order and be ready to move. Book a consultation and we'll tell you how today's decision affects your specific case.

This post is general information, current as of when it was written — not legal advice, and no substitute for talking to an attorney about your own case. This is a fast-moving area and the ruling may be appealed or stayed. Reading this doesn't make us your lawyers. Please get advice on your specific situation before you act.

If you're trying to get your green card from inside the U.S., the ground shifted under you this year. Two changes are behind it — one at the State Department, one at USCIS — and between them, adjusting status is no longer the safe default it used to be.

What happened

In January, the State Department stopped issuing immigrant visas at consulates for nationals of 75 countries, under Presidential Proclamation 10998. Around the same time, staffing cuts left the consulates that are still processing badly backed up. So finishing a green card abroad got slower for almost everyone — and for people from those 75 countries, it stopped being an option at all.

Then, on May 21, USCIS issued a memo that changed the other half of the equation. It says plainly that adjusting status inside the U.S. isn't something you're entitled to. It's discretionary — an "extraordinary act of administrative grace," in the agency's own words — and officers are now told to grant it sparingly rather than treat it as a stand-in for going through a consulate.

What it actually means for adjustment of status

Meeting the legal requirements is now the starting point, not the finish line. You can check every box on eligibility and still be denied if the officer decides the equities don't justify approving the case here instead of abroad. They're told to look at the whole record — any overstays or unauthorized work, whether you kept to the terms of your visa, anything that looks like fraud or misrepresentation — alongside the good, like family ties and the life you've built here. What hurts most is anything that reads as ducking the consulate or refusing to leave when you were expected to.

Who this hits hardest

Highest risk: people who've fallen out of status. If you came in on ESTA, the Visa Waiver Program, or a B-1/B-2 visitor visa and that status has since expired, you're squarely in the zone this memo is aimed at. Overstays and gaps in status are exactly the kind of negative factors officers are now told to weigh heavily.

Lower risk, but not automatic: H-1B and L-1 workers and their families. The memo does not take adjustment away from dual-intent workers, and in practice USCIS has signaled this isn't really aimed at people holding valid dual-intent status. If you've kept clean status, a straightforward case shouldn't be derailed. The catch is that valid status alone is no longer a guarantee — an old status gap, a late filing, unauthorized work, or an inconsistent statement to USCIS or a consulate can still pull you into discretionary scrutiny.

F-1/OPT, TN, and E-3 holders. These are "single-intent" categories, and if anything in the file suggests you meant to immigrate all along, expect harder questions.

Nationals of the 75 affected countries. You can end up caught in the middle — the consular route is frozen, and adjusting here is now a discretionary call.

What we're seeing in practice

For clients in valid dual-intent status with a clean record, we don't expect this to upend a straightforward green card case — but we've stopped treating eligibility as the whole story. We build the discretionary argument into every filing from the start: proof you've kept status, tax records, real ties here, a solid employment history. Where there's something in the background — an old overstay, a gap, unauthorized work — we deal with it head-on instead of hoping an officer doesn't notice.

The real concern is for anyone whose visitor or visa-waiver status has lapsed, and for nationals of the affected countries, where neither route is simple. One more practical point worth knowing: once you file an I-130 or I-140, you've put immigrant intent on the record, and that can complicate leaving and re-entering the U.S. — especially on ESTA or a B visa. We factor that travel risk in before anything gets filed.

USCIS hasn't said whether it will eventually narrow adjustment for particular categories, or exactly how it's handling cases already in the pipeline, though it's hinted more specific guidance is coming. We're watching closely and adjusting as it moves.

If you have an I-485 pending, or you're weighing whether to adjust here or go through a consulate, talk to us before you file. Book a consultation and we'll lay out the best route for your situation.

This post is general information, current as of when it was written — not legal advice, and no substitute for talking to an attorney about your own case. This area is changing quickly, and reading this doesn't make us your lawyers. Please get advice on your specific situation before you act.