Federal
Trump Signs New Executive Orders Targeting Birthright Citizenship After Supreme Court Loss
President Trump signed two executive orders on August 6 seeking to narrow birthright citizenship, five weeks after the Supreme Court ruled June 30 in Trump v. Barbara that his earlier attempt to deny citizenship based on parents’ immigration status violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The first order, “Continuing to Protect the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” denies citizenship to children born in the U.S. when neither parent is a citizen and one parent is a foreign government employee, an “alien enemy” tied to a designated terrorist group, someone who obtained a U.S. birth through a commercial surrogacy or fraud-related transaction, or a resident of a territory where citizenship is not conferred by federal statute. The second order, “Ending Birth Tourism,” directs the State Department and Department of Homeland Security to deny or revoke visas, block entry, and pursue enforcement against foreign nationals and facilitators who travel to the U.S. specifically to give birth.
The administration argues the orders operate within the narrow historical exceptions to birthright citizenship that the Supreme Court affirmed in June, such as the long-recognized exclusion for children of accredited diplomats, rather than reviving the broader approach the Court struck down. Civil rights groups reject that framing, and several advocacy organizations sued the administration on August 11. They asked a federal judge to block enforcement of the new orders, arguing they represent another unconstitutional attempt to undermine a citizenship guarantee the Supreme Court has already upheld. Courts will now have to decide whether the administration is applying exceptions the Supreme Court already recognized or manufacturing new ones the Court has already rejected, leaving families, agencies, and officials who document citizenship facing renewed uncertainty until that question is resolved.
DHS Proposes Ending 60-Day Grace Period for H-1B Visa Holders and Imposes Biometric Fee
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) submitted a proposed rule to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on August 6 that would eliminate the 60-day grace period currently afforded to H-1B, L-1, E, TN, and other nonimmigrant visa holders whose employment ends before their authorized stay expires. Under current rules, workers who lose their jobs can remain in the U.S. for up to 60 days to find new employment or change status. If the grace period is eliminated, affected workers and their dependents would generally have to leave the country immediately and would be unable to change status or employers unless U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) grants discretionary relief. The rule has not yet been published in the Federal Register and will be subject to a 30- to 60-day public comment period once it clears OMB review, meaning the existing grace period remains in effect for now.
Separately, DHS finalized a rule, published August 10 and taking effect September 9, that expands the $4,000 “9-11 Response and Biometric Entry-Exit Fee” for H-1B petitions (and $4,500 for L-1 petitions) to cover all extension-of-status filings, not just initial petitions or change-of-employer requests. The fee applies to employers with at least 50 U.S. employees where more than half the workforce holds H-1B or L-1 status, and DHS estimates it will generate an additional $37.9 million in fiscal year 2026 and $40 million in fiscal year 2027. Immigration attorneys note the expanded fee is separate from the $100,000 H-1B entry fee imposed last year, which does not apply to extension petitions, but warn that combined with the potential loss of the grace period, employers and workers could face significantly higher costs and less flexibility when navigating job transitions.
Legal
New Ruling BIA Could Bar Some Advance Parole Holders From Reentering the U.S.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) ruled on August 13 in Matter of Delcarmen-Lara that traveling abroad on advance parole can trigger the three- or ten-year unlawful presence bar to reentry, overturning 14 years of precedent set by Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly in 2012. Under the prior rule, a trip abroad on advance parole was not considered a “departure” for purposes of the unlawful presence bars, allowing immigrants, including many Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients, who had accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence to travel and return without jeopardizing a future path to a green card. The BIA rejected that reasoning, concluding that the plain statutory language does not exempt advance parole travel from the ordinary meaning of “departure.” As a result, a person who accrued more than 180 days but less than a year of unlawful presence before departing could now face a three-year bar upon return, while a year or more could trigger a ten-year bar.
The ruling applies only prospectively, so trips taken on advance parole before August 13 are not affected, but the Board explicitly overruled the legal foundation many immigrants and attorneys had relied on for over a decade when advising clients that such travel was safe. Immigrant advocacy groups condemned the decision, warning it could strip DACA recipients and others of a pathway to permanent status simply for having lawfully traveled with government-issued travel authorization.
Judge Steps Up Scrutiny of Children’s Detention Amid Challenges to Flores Rules
A federal judge in Los Angeles ordered new independent oversight of immigrant children’s detention this week, appointing both an independent monitor and a special master after finding that officials at facilities in Texas and California likely held children and other detainees in unsafe temperatures and denied them soap and adequate sleeping conditions. Judge Dolly Gee’s order, issued August 17, comes as she continues to oversee government compliance with the 1997 Flores settlement, the consent decree that sets minimum standards of care for immigrant children in federal custody and generally requires their prompt release.
The ruling lands amid an escalating legal fight over the settlement’s future. The Trump administration has pursued a two-track strategy: pressing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to terminate the agreement entirely while simultaneously urging the district court not to impose the kind of independent monitoring Gee has now ordered. The dispute has taken on new urgency amid the administration’s broader expansion of family detention, which has included reopening detention centers in Karnes and Dilley, Texas that had been shuttered since 2021, and reports that hundreds of children have been held well beyond the settlement’s 20-day limit. Judge Gee said during a June hearing that her “patience has come to an end” after years of what she called bad-faith noncompliance, and the Justice Department has simultaneously pressed the 9th Circuit to let the administration scrap the settlement altogether, arguing DHS’s conduct should be judged against current law rather than “a 30-year-old settlement agreement” . Legal experts say that if the 9th Circuit sides with the government, the fight is likely headed to the Supreme Court, meaning Gee’s newly appointed independent monitor could end up enforcing a settlement whose legal survival remains very much in doubt.
University Groups Sue to Block Rule Ending Duration of Status for International Students
A coalition of higher education associations, labor unions, and media groups sued the Department of Homeland Security on August 18, seeking to block a final rule that would replace the decades-old “duration of status” framework for F, J, and I visa holders with fixed admission periods before it takes effect September 15. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, argues DHS violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to adequately assess the rule’s costs and benefits, respond meaningfully to public comments, consider less burdensome alternatives, or justify the regulation based on its stated goals. Plaintiffs are asking the court to vacate the rule entirely and issue a preliminary injunction preventing it from taking effect. Under the rule, F-1 and J-1 students would be capped at four-year admission periods regardless of how long their academic program actually takes, while I visas for foreign journalists would be cut from as long as five years to 240 days, or just 90 days for Chinese nationals; anyone needing more time would have to file a formal extension request with USCIS, including fees and biometric collection. The plaintiffs argue in their complaint that the changes would be “catastrophic” for universities, international students, and scholars, warning that the compressed timeline before the rule’s effective date has left institutions and prospective students with little ability to prepare.
The lawsuit does not automatically pause the rule, meaning it remains scheduled to take effect September 15 unless the court grants a stay beforehand. The case adds to a broader legal and policy fight over the rule, including its effects on Optional Practical Training and the roughly 1.6 million F-1 and 500,000 J-1 visa holders active annually who would be affected by the shift away from duration of status
LEGISLATIVE FLOOR CALENDAR
The U.S. House will return from recess on August 31, and the U.S. Senate will return on September 14.
SPOTLIGHT ON NATIONAL IMMIGRATION FORUM RESOURCES
The Forum is constantly publishing new policy-focused resources that engage with some of the most topical issues around immigration today. Here are a few that are particularly relevant this week:
Bill Summary: State-Sponsored Visa Pilot Program Act of 2026
Explainer: Trump Administration Issues New Executive Orders Targeting Birthright Citizenship and Birth Tourism
Explainer: Final Duration of Status Rule Establishes Limited Periods of Admission for International Students and Journalists
Temporary Protected Status (TPS): Fact Sheet
*As of publication (8/20/26 at 4:00 PM EST)
This Bulletin is not intended to be comprehensive. Please contact Nicci Mattey, Senior Policy & Advocacy Associate at the Forum, with questions, comments, and suggestions for additional items to be included. Nicci can be reached at nmattey@forumtogether.org. Thank you.