Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Role of continuing resolutions in avoiding government shutdowns over immigration
Executive Summary
Continuing resolutions (CRs) function as the most frequent tool Congress uses to prevent government shutdowns and thereby blunt immediate disruptions to immigration services, but they produce funding uncertainty and uneven impacts across agencies. The record from 2019–2025 shows CRs keep fee‑funded operations like many USCIS services and State Department visa posts running while leaving appropriations‑dependent programs such as certain DOL certifications, parts of EOIR and non‑detained immigration courts, and some vetting functions vulnerable to lapses [1] [2] [3]. Stakeholders disagree on whether CRs are a temporary pragmatic fix or a harmful routine that erodes program planning, with recent coverage and legal analyses documenting both the short‑term preservation of services and the operational friction CRs create [4] [5] [6].
1. How CRs keep the lights on but shift the pain
Continuing resolutions temporarily extend prior year funding levels so federal agencies can operate when Congress fails to enact regular appropriations, and this stopgap mechanism routinely allowed immigration operations to continue while negotiations proceeded. Multiple analyses note that fee‑funded USCIS activities and consular visa processing generally continue under CRs because their operations are financed by user fees rather than annual appropriations, which insulated many casework functions in 2025 even amid funding lapses [2] [7]. At the same time, appropriations‑dependent immigration programs—DOL labor certifications, certain grant programs, court support for non‑detained dockets and some vetting units—face furloughs or curtailed activity if a CR is not in place or if its terms exclude anomalies; these uneven outcomes produce operational bottlenecks and backlogs [6] [3].
2. Recent evidence: what the 2025 disruptions reveal
The 2025 partial shutdown and the stopgap measures that followed demonstrate the dual nature of CRs: they preserved core border enforcement and fee‑driven services but caused furloughs, slowed employer‑based immigration, and interrupted some security screening and certification work. Reporting and legal summaries from October–November 2025 document approximately 900,000 federal employees furloughed or working without pay in the broader shutdown, while critical law‑enforcement functions for immigration continued and USCIS maintained most processing due to fee funding—yet with measurable delays in programs tied to appropriations [6] [2]. Analysts argue this pattern shows CRs mitigate acute collapse but leave significant service degradation and legal uncertainty for employers, migrants, and courts awaiting adjudication [5] [8].
3. Policy debate: pragmatic stopgap or corrosive habit?
Advocates of CRs argue they are a practical necessity that buys Congress time to resolve complex budget disputes without halting vital operations; analyses of the FY2024–FY2025 CRs emphasize their role in funding defense, border security, and continuity of core immigration enforcement while negotiations proceed [4]. Critics counter that repeated reliance on CRs prevents Congress and agencies from implementing reforms, forces programs to operate at frozen funding levels inappropriate for current needs, and undermines long‑term planning for immigration adjudication, technology upgrades, and legal backlogs—issues repeatedly highlighted across legal and policy commentary [9] [5]. The competing viewpoints reflect institutional incentives: legislators prefer short‑term averting action, agencies face constraints, and stakeholders bear the service disruptions.
4. Practical impacts on specific immigration functions
A closer read of the records shows heterogeneous effects across immigration functions: USCIS fee‑funded adjudications largely continued in 2025, State Department visa and passport operations generally kept working, while DOL labor certifications, E‑Verify operations, Conrad 30 programs, and certain immigration court support were susceptible to suspension absent a CR [7] [2] [3]. This fragmentation produces cascading consequences: employer‑based immigration slows when labor certifications halt; backlog growth in immigration courts changes case schedules; and temporary suspensions of security screening or document verification create downstream delays even for fee‑funded processes. The net result is continuity in headline services but hidden interruptions that compound over months.
5. What reporters and stakeholders should watch next
Future budget cycles will test whether Congress treats CRs as an exception or the norm; recent legislation and stopgap deals through early 2025–2026 signal a continued pattern of last‑minute extensions that prioritize immediate continuity over structural fixes, and observers should track whether appropriations include targeted anomalies to protect vulnerable immigration functions [4] [8]. Watch for legislative language that explicitly funds appropriations‑dependent immigration programs outside CR rules, changes to fee‑funding reliance for USCIS, and oversight reporting on backlog metrics—each would indicate a shift from reactive CR reliance toward either more resilient funding structures or deeper institutional fragility [9] [6].