On February 6, 2026, the administration sought emergency relief from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia’s February 2 order (see here for our prior TPS employer impact update) and filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, moving the Haiti Temporary Protected Status (TPS) dispute into the appellate phase. At a February 12 hearing, U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes declined from the bench to lift the February 3 stay that is currently preventing the termination of Haiti’s TPS. She indicated that a written ruling would follow by February 19, consistent with the next deadline in the appellate schedule.
For employers, the immediate practical takeaway remains the same: Haiti TPS‑related employment authorization documents covered by the stay should continue to be treated as valid for work authorization purposes unless and until a court orders otherwise.
The government’s messaging has been clear about its intended path if the D.C. Circuit does not rule in its favor. In public comments to news outlets, Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security Tricia McLaughlin stated, “Supreme Court, here we come.”
Employers should take this as a signal that even if the stay remains in place over the next few weeks, the landscape may continue to shift quickly. We are likely to see an evolving patchwork of TPS‑related district court orders, appellate decisions, and agency operational guidance, any of which can change with little notice.
USCIS Responds with I-9 and E-Verify Guidance but Limited Detail
Against that backdrop, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) shared employer facing instructions on how to complete the Form I-9 and submit E-Verify queries for certain Haiti TPS recipients.
The key operational takeaways from the USCIS guidance are as follows.
- The following EADs issued under Haiti TPS retain their validity and are granted automatic extension per the court’s order:
- Original expiration dates: Feb. 3, 2026; Aug. 3, 2025; Aug. 3, 2024; June 30, 2024; Feb. 3, 2023; Dec. 31, 2022; Oct. 4, 2021; Jan. 4, 2021; Jan. 2, 2020; July 22, 2019; Jan. 22, 2018; July 22, 2017.
- When completing the employee entered expiration date field in Section 1, USCIS instructs employees to input “as per court order.”
- When completing Section 2, USCIS instructs employers to enter an expiration date of March 15, 2026, and to include a note in the additional information box.
- For E-Verify cases, USCIS instructs employers to use the same March 15, 2026 date.
- USCIS also advises employers to download and retain both the alert and the TPS Haiti webpage with the Form I‑9 file, and to monitor the site regularly for updates.
What USCIS Did Not Answer and Why Employers Should Care
The practical value of having any date at all cannot be overstated, particularly for employers whose onboarding workflows, reverification ticklers, and E‑Verify processes rely on a specific date rather than a narrative annotation. But the guidance is also notably thin in ways that create real compliance friction.
USCIS instructs employers to add a note in the Additional Information box, yet does not specify what that notation should say beyond the Section 1 entry of “as per court order” and the placeholder date in Section 2. In effect, USCIS acknowledges the need for a narrative record but leaves employers to determine what constitutes “good enough” documentation in an audit file.
The agency also does not directly address how employers should handle existing employees who do not require a new Form I-9 but may need a Section 2 update or notation, consistent with how the employer is documenting the court-driven extension using the administration’s March 15, 2026 date, which is rapidly approaching
The result is a familiar employer headache: you get a date, but not the playbook for implementing it consistently across employee populations and systems.
Electronic I-9 Vendors Are Now in the Spotlight
A further practical issue is already emerging: how electronic I‑9 platforms will operationalize these instructions. The USCIS guidance does not appear to account for the challenges electronic I‑9 vendors face in implementing these requirements on a short timeline.
Many systems rely on a structured expiration‑date field that does not easily accommodate narrative text in Section 1, and a structured Section 2 workflow that may not be designed for court‑order‑driven placeholder dates that could change again with little notice. Even when a platform can technically accept the required entries, the harder question is how it will display the Section 1 annotation and the Section 2 “Additional Information” note in a manner that is both compliant and audit‑ready amid rapidly shifting guidance.
In short, this is uncharted water in a river that continues to change course frequently and without warning.
Where This Leaves Employers Right Now
Employers should view this as both a litigation story and an operational compliance story. The litigation remains active: the appeal is pending before the D.C. Circuit, and the government has openly signaled that, if unsuccessful there, it intends to seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Operationally, USCIS has provided a workable placeholder framework for I‑9 and E‑Verify purposes, but not the level of detail employers typically need to drive consistent practices across locations, HR teams, and electronic systems. The result is a compliance environment that requires close monitoring and a readiness to adjust processes as litigation developments and agency guidance continue to evolve.
Employers that have already recorded a three‑ or six‑month reverification extension for existing employees, may find it prudent to leave those notations in place for now. Until USCIS or the courts provide clearer direction, maintaining the existing entries avoids unnecessary re‑handling of completed I‑9s and preserves a clean audit trail that reflects the employer’s contemporaneous, good‑faith compliance approach.
Given the speed and stakes, employers should first consult with immigration compliance counsel on what to implement, what to document, and how to keep that approach consistent across the organization, particularly as courts or USCIS may direct differently with little notice.
Please contact Dawn M. Lurie for more information. Seyfarth Immigration Compliance & Investigations specialty group is recognized as a national leader in the field. Trusted by Fortune 100 companies and small businesses nationwide, the team provides strategic, practical guidance across the full spectrum of immigration compliance. The group advises on Form I-9 and E-Verify compliance; ICE inspections and worksite enforcement actions; internal immigration assessments and I-9 audits; DOL immigration-related wage and hour investigations; H-1B compliance; and DOJ’s IER and OCAHO anti-discrimination matters, including foreign sponsorship and export control/ITAR issues.
“With approximately 900 lawyers across 17 offices, Seyfarth Shaw LLP provides advisory, litigation, and transactional legal services to clients worldwide.”
Please visit the firm link to site
