Case: Bade v. United States Department of Homeland Security

3:26-cv-00436 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina

Filed Date: June 3, 2026

Closed Date: July 2, 2026

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This was a case challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) October 30, 2025 interim final rule (IFR) eliminating the Employment Authorization Document (EAD) auto-extention program and the Department’s alleged delay of adjudicating the plaintiff’s employment authorization renewal applications.  On June 3, 2026, a foreign national from India with H-4 status and I-756 employment authorization filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The…

This was a case challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) October 30, 2025 interim final rule (IFR) eliminating the Employment Authorization Document (EAD) auto-extention program and the Department’s alleged delay of adjudicating the plaintiff’s employment authorization renewal applications. 

On June 3, 2026, a foreign national from India with H-4 status and I-756 employment authorization filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. They sued the DHS under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The plaintiff alleged that the DHS implemented the IFR without the required notice-and-comment rulemaking process under the APA. The plaintiff alleged that the IFR, titled “Removal of the Automatic Extension of Employment Authorization Documents,” improperly invoked the "good cause" exception of the APA to bypass standard rulemaking procedures, relying on a pretextual national security justification and ignoring existing continuous vetting programs — the Automated Threat Level Assessment System (ATLAS) and Continuous Immigration Vetting (CIV) — that already provide real-time monitoring of foreign nationals. This action, the plaintiff maintained, was also arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA. The plaintiff further alleged that DHS unreasonably delayed adjudication of her EAD renewal application, which she filed on November 3, 2025, placing her employment at risk. The application remained pending despite an expedited service request submitted on February 11, 2026, and a second request submitted on March 23, 2026, neither of which received a substantive response. Additionally, the plaintiff alleged that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) failed to adjudicate her administrative appeal of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request within the required 20-business-day statutory deadline. The plaintiff, represented by private counsel, sought vacatur of the IFR, an order compelling a decision on her EAD renewal within 30 days, production of records responsive to her FOIA request, and attorney's fees. The case was assigned to District Judge Susan C. Rodriguez and Magistrate Judge W. Carleton Metcalf. 

On July 2, 2026, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case because the defendant favorably acted on the visa petition that gave rise to the complaint. All parties agreed to pay their own costs and fees.

Summary Authors

Trump2.0 Collection (6/14/2026)

Kara Wilczynski (7/22/2026)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73434730/parties/bade-v-united-states-department-of-homeland-security/


Attorney for Plaintiff

Parsonage, Helen Louise (North Carolina)

Wasden, Jonathan Del (North Carolina)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Documents in this case
1

3:26-cv-00436

Complaint

June 3, 2026

June 3, 2026

Complaint
6

3:26-cv-00436

Notice of Voluntary Dismissal

July 2, 2026

July 2, 2026

Pleading / Motion / Brief

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73434730/bade-v-united-states-department-of-homeland-security/

Last updated Sept. 25, 2026, 3:21 a.m.

Docket for: Bade v. United States Department of Homeland Security
ECF Number Date Description Link
1 June 3, 2026

COMPLAINT against United States Department of Homeland Security ( Filing fee $ 405 receipt number ANCWDC-7468178) filed by Sushma Bade. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Sheet)(Parsonage, Helen) (Entered: 06/03/2026)

1 Cover Sheet

View on PACER

Clearinghouse
2 June 3, 2026

MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Jonathan Wasden Filing fee $ 300, receipt number ANCWDC-7468192. by Sushma Bade. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing) (Parsonage, Helen) (Entered: 06/03/2026)

RECAP
3 June 4, 2026

Summons Issued Electronically as to United States Department of Homeland Security, US Attorney and US Attorney General. NOTICE: Counsel shall print the summons and serve with other case opening documents in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P.4. (add) (Entered: 06/04/2026)

RECAP
June 4, 2026

Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence

June 4, 2026

Case Assigned/Reassigned

June 4, 2026

Case assigned to District Judge Susan C Rodriguez and US Magistrate Judge W. Carleton Metcalf. Notice: You must click this link to retrieve the Case Assignment Packet. Motions referred to W. Carleton Metcalf: 2 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Jonathan Wasden Filing fee $ 300, receipt number ANCWDC-7468192. This is your only notice - you will not receive a separate document.(add)

June 4, 2026

Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (3:24-mc-104). Click on this link to retrieve the Standing Order. (a dd)

4 June 9, 2026

ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Added Jonathan Del Wasden for Sushma Bade. Signed by US Magistrate Judge W. Carleton Metcalf on 6/8/2026. (sc) (Entered: 06/09/2026)

RECAP
5 June 22, 2026

Summons Returned Executed

RECAP
6 July 2, 2026

Notice of Voluntary Dismissal

Clearinghouse

Case Details

State / Territory:

North Carolina

Case Type(s):

Immigration and/or the Border

Special Collection(s):

Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government

Key Dates

Filing Date: June 3, 2026

Closing Date: July 2, 2026

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Plaintiff is a foreign national seeking to extend her Employment Authorization Application

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Federal

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.

FOIA (Freedom of Information Act), 5 U.S.C. § 552

Other Dockets:

Western District of North Carolina 3:26-cv-00436

Available Documents:

Complaint (any)

Trial Court Docket

Outcome

Prevailing Party: None Yet / None

Relief Sought:

Attorneys fees

Injunction

Relief Granted:

None

Source of Relief:

None

Issues

Immigration/Border:

Employment

Work authorization - procedures

Recommended Citation