Most coverage stops there. The more interesting story is what the final rule does to the litigation.

On September 10, Judge David O. Carter (C.D. Cal.) granted a preliminary injunction in Jane Doe 1 v. DHS and set aside the October 2025 interim rule as to seven H-4 spouses. His central holding: DHS lacked good cause to skip notice and comment.

Five weeks later, DHS finalized the rule after taking and answering public comments. That goes straight at the procedural defect the court found. It also raises a hard question for the seven plaintiffs: their order set aside the interim rule, not the final one.

The next round will likely turn on the other half of Judge Carter's order. He found DHS never explained why its continuous-vetting systems (ATLAS and Continuous Immigration Vetting) were not enough, and that reliance interests were not a real factor. The final rule now responds on both: continuous screening tools "do not obviate the need to complete appropriate vetting," and the policy outweighs reliance. Whether that is reasoned decision-making or a conclusion restated is the next fight.

One detail worth watching: DHS's own November 2025 biometrics proposal announces "a program of continuous immigration vetting." That sits awkwardly beside a rule premised on vetting at the moment of renewal.

What this means right now:

• Employers: if an H-4 employee's renewal was filed on or after October 30, 2025, assume no automatic extension. Even the seven Doe plaintiffs should confirm where they stand under the final rule. Calendar reverification before the card expires.

• H-4 spouses: file renewals on the first day of the 180-day window, and file with a premium-processed H-1B extension where you can.

• Practitioners: delay suits now carry real wage stakes. Expect the government to argue that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars pace-of-adjudication claims; courts are divided on that question.

The rule is final. The fight over it is not.

***Disclaimer: This post is for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is fact specific. Please contact our office to discuss how this decision may affect your individual situation.***