Dorcas v. USCIS: what the vacatur of the hold policies means for pending employer cases

Most employers affected by the 2026 holds were not parties to the case that ended them. They benefit because the court vacated the policies rather than enjoining them for the plaintiffs alone, and that difference shapes what an employer can do next.

What the court did

On 5 June 2026 the District of Rhode Island, in Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS, vacated PM-602-0192, PM-602-0194 and Policy Alert PA-2025-26. The plaintiffs were non-governmental organisations and labor unions. The court entered final judgment on 11 June. USCIS's alert on the order states that the order is effective immediately, that the vacatur applies agency-wide, and that the memoranda and the alert should be treated as not in effect. It adds that USCIS strongly disagrees and will follow the order pending further judicial review.

The policies had been issued on the basis of Proclamation 10949 of June 2025 and Proclamation 10998 of December 2025. The vacatur addresses the USCIS policies, not the proclamations' entry restrictions.

The appeal

The government appealed to the First Circuit, No. 26-1703. On 14 August 2026 the court of appeals ruled on the government's stay request in a decision; practitioners report that it allowed the re-review policy for previously approved cases to resume pending appeal, while the hold on pending benefits remained vacated. A separate class action in the Northern District of California, Red Eagle Law v. Edlow, produced a preliminary injunction for a certified class in August 2026; the rest of that case was then stayed pending the First Circuit's decision, with the injunction left in place. The position can change again.

How employers should use it

• Identify cases that were held only because of the beneficiary's nationality and that have not moved since June.
• Send a written inquiry citing the USCIS alert, and keep it in the evidence file.
• If the case still does not move, the delay claim described in the writ of mandamus explained is stronger than before: the agency's own published position is that the hold policy is not in effect.
• Expect the government to rely on other grounds, especially security vetting, discussed in security re-vetting. Mandamus.com summarises the usual answers on government defences.

Work-authorisation consequences are covered in EADs, the I-9 and the hold. Why a vacatur reaches non-parties while an injunction may not is explained in APA delay and mandamus and in after Trump v. CASA. New rulings are tracked on Mandamus.com's case law updates. The original memorandum remains available as PM-602-0194.

What the vacatur does not do

A vacatur restores the ordinary process; it does not decide any case. Applications released from the hold still go through vetting, requests for evidence and, where relevant, the discretionary review described in PM-602-0199. Employers should expect some released cases to receive requests for evidence rather than approvals, and should prepare the file accordingly rather than treating the court order as the end of the matter.

Questions

Does the vacatur help employers who were not parties?

Yes. USCIS says the vacatur applies agency-wide and that the vacated memoranda should be treated as not in effect.

Did the vacatur lift the travel restrictions?

No. It addressed USCIS adjudication policies, not the entry restrictions in the proclamations.

Can the holds come back?

Possibly, if the First Circuit reverses or other relief is granted. Practitioners report that the re-review policy was already allowed to resume pending appeal.

General information, not legal advice. Rules and processing practice change; verify against the agency's own published figures and take advice on your own facts.