News & Resources

CASA de Maryland v. Mayorkas: Protecting asylum seekers’ access to work authorization

In July 2020, we filed a lawsuit on behalf of five non-profit organizations that challenged Trump-era rules making it more difficult for asylum seekers to access work authorization (also known as “Employment Authorization Documents” or EADs) while they wait for their asylum applications to be decided. One of these rules removed the 30-day requirement for USCIS to decide work authorization applications and another added barriers to accessing work authorization. Work authorization is important for asylum seekers to have a way to support their livelihoods during the long wait for asylum in the country.

Our clients

Our clients are five non-profit organizations that serve asylum applicants: CASA de Maryland, the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP), Centro Legal de la Raza, Oasis Legal Services, and Pangea Legal Services.

In September 2020, the court issued a preliminary injunction that prohibited the government from applying some of the rule changes to members of CASA de Maryland and ASAP. The preliminary injunction applied to anyone who was a member of CASA de Maryland or ASAP when they submitted the application for a work authorization based on an asylum application.

On year later, our clients moved for summary judgment and a permanent injunction to make sure that the rules were not enforced against all asylum seekers. In February 2021, a federal court in another lawsuit challenging the same Trump-era rules—Asylumworks v. Mayorkas (D.D.C.)—vacated the rules on a permanent basis for all asylum seekers.  

For the next two years, our clients continued the fight to ensure that the Trump-era rules were fully eradicated and no longer causing harm to asylum seekers.  Eventually, the federal government formally changed the regulatory language, removed the rules from federal forms, and dedicated additional resources to processing initial employment authorization applications for asylum seekers. In April 2023, the CASA court held that our clients had received all the relief they had sought in their complaint. 

Impact

As a result of this litigation, hundreds of thousands asylum seekers had an easier time receiving work authorization and supporting themselves and their families while they pursued their asylum claims in the United States.

If you are an asylum seeker looking for work authorization resources, please click here (EnglishEspañol) for the resources of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, one of our clients and our co-counsel in this case.

ASAP and the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP were co-counsel in this case.

Follow the Case

  • July 21, 2020 | Complaint

    View Document +
  • September 11, 2020 | Court’s order and memorandum opinion granting in part Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary relief

    View Document +
  • August 3, 2020 | Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary relief

    View Document +
  • August 7, 2020 | Plaintiffs’ reply in support of preliminary relief

    View Document +
  • August 17, 2020 | Plaintiffs’ supplemental letter brief in support of preliminary relief (705 stay)

    View Document +
  • August 17, 2020 | Defendants’ supplemental letter brief in opposition to preliminary relief (705 stay)

    View Document +
  • August 21, 2020 | Plaintiffs’ supplemental letter brief in support of preliminary relief (standing, Vacancies Act)

    View Document +
  • August 21, 2020 | Defendants’ supplemental letter brief in opposition to preliminary relief (standing, Vacancies Act)

    View Document +
  • August 26, 2020 | Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file supplemental brief and Exhibit A with supplemental brief (standing, Vacancies Act)

    View Document +
  • August 26, 2020 | Exhibit A to Plaintiffs’ motion with supplemental brief (standing, Vacancies Act)

    View Document +
  • September 2, 2020 | Defendants’ supplemental letter brief in opposition to preliminary relief (standing, Vacancies Act, scope of relief)

    View Document +
  • September 2, 2020 | Plaintiffs’ supplemental letter brief in support of preliminary relief (standing, Vacancies Act, scope of relief)

    View Document +
  • September 4, 2020 | Plaintiffs’ supplemental letter brief in support of preliminary relief (standing, Vacancies Act, scope of relief)

    View Document +
  • September 4, 2020 | Defendants’ supplemental letter brief in opposition to preliminary relief (standing, Vacancies Act, scope of relief)

    View Document +
  • September 11, 2020 | Court’s order and memorandum opinion granting in part Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary relief

    View Document +
  • October 21, 2020 | Parties’ status report on preliminary injunction implementation

    View Document +
  • April 20, 2021 | Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, or in the alternative, to modify the preliminary injunction

    View Document +
  • September 9, 2022 | Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, motion for contempt

    View Document +
  • September 9, 2022 | ASAP’s declaration in support of motion

    View Document +
  • September 30, 2022 | Plaintiffs’ brief in support of their motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, motion for contempt

    View Document +
  • November 2, 2022 | Plaintiffs’ brief in opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss

    View Document +
  • Asylum Seekers and Advocates Discuss Fight for Work Permits Following Oral Arguments in CASA v. Mayorkas Case

    View Press Release +
  • Press Release: Court Partially Blocks Rules Limiting Work Permits for Asylum Seekers

    View Press Release +
  • Press Release: Asylum Seekers File Federal Lawsuit to Protect Their Ability to Work

    View Press Release +