NEW YORK — A federal judge in Manhattan has struck down a Trump administration policy that suspended the issuance of immigrant visas to applicants from 75 countries, ruling that the State Department exceeded its legal authority in imposing the sweeping restriction.
U.S. District Judge Jeannette A. Vargas of the Southern District of New York issued the decision Friday in Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. v. Rubio, a lawsuit challenging a State Department directive that had halted immigrant visa issuance for nationals of dozens of countries across Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean, the Balkans and the Middle East. (Reuters)
The ruling vacated the policy and requires the State Department to return to individualized consideration of immigrant visa applications rather than categorically denying visas on the basis of an applicant’s nationality. (NILC)
Vargas concluded that the policy conflicted with federal immigration law and exceeded the authority Congress granted to the secretary of state. In her ruling, she described the policy as “patently unlawful.” (Reuters)
The decision represents a major development in the administration’s immigration agenda and carries consequences far beyond New York, potentially affecting families and prospective immigrants around the world.
Policy Took Effect in January
The State Department’s suspension took effect Jan. 21 and applied to immigrant visa applicants from 75 countries.
The government said applicants from the designated countries presented a heightened risk of becoming a “public charge,” a term used in federal immigration law in determining whether an individual is likely to become primarily dependent on government assistance. (The Legal Aid Society)
Countries affected by the policy included Brazil, Colombia and Uruguay in Latin America; Albania and Bosnia in the Balkans; Pakistan and Bangladesh in South Asia; and numerous countries across Africa, the Middle East and the Caribbean. (Dawn)
The lawsuit was filed Feb. 2 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, African Communities Together and individual plaintiffs, including U.S. citizens attempting to sponsor relatives and applicants seeking family- or employment-based immigrant visas. (African Communities Together)
The defendants were Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the U.S. Department of State.
Court Rejects Blanket Nationality Restriction
At the center of the case was the question of whether the State Department could effectively prevent immigrant visas from being issued to nationals of an entire group of countries based on concerns that applicants from those nations might eventually rely on public benefits.
Vargas rejected that approach.
The court found that federal immigration law gives consular officers responsibility for evaluating individual immigrant visa applications and limits the government’s ability to discriminate in visa issuance solely on the basis of nationality. (NILC)
The ruling concluded that the department’s blanket policy displaced the individualized decision-making process established by Congress.
The court also vacated visa denials that had been based solely on the challenged policy and directed the government to resume lawful case-by-case processing. (NILC)
The decision does not mean that every applicant from the affected countries will receive a visa. Consular officers retain authority to determine whether individual applicants satisfy U.S. immigration requirements.
Instead, the ruling removes the categorical prohibition that prevented applicants from being considered under the normal statutory process.
Lawsuit Included Families and Workers
The plaintiffs included nonprofit immigration organizations as well as 11 individuals affected by the restrictions.
According to organizations involved in the lawsuit, the individual plaintiffs included professionals from Colombia seeking employment-based visas and U.S. citizens seeking visas for family members from countries including Ghana, Ethiopia, Jamaica and Guatemala. (NILC)
Attorneys challenging the policy argued that the suspension separated families and prevented qualified workers from completing immigration processes established under federal law.
The case was brought by a legal team that included the National Immigration Law Center, Democracy Forward, The Legal Aid Society of New York, the Western Center on Law & Poverty, the Center for Constitutional Rights and Colombo & Hurd. (NILC)
The State Department had not immediately issued a public response to the ruling when Reuters reported the decision. (Reuters)
A National Immigration Decision From Manhattan
The ruling adds another nationally significant case to the docket of the Southern District of New York, one of the country’s most prominent federal courts.
The Southern District has jurisdiction over Manhattan and several surrounding New York counties and has operated continuously in New York since the country’s earliest years. The court describes itself as the first federal court to sit under the newly adopted U.S. Constitution in 1789. (U.S District Court)
Vargas joined the federal bench after being confirmed by the Senate in 2024 following her nomination by President Joe Biden.
Friday’s decision places the Manhattan court at the center of another major dispute over the limits of executive authority in immigration policy.
The administration has pursued wide-ranging changes to immigration enforcement and legal immigration since President Donald Trump returned to office. Supporters of those policies have argued that stricter controls are necessary to protect national security and public resources, while immigrant-rights organizations have challenged several measures as exceeding statutory or constitutional limits.
In this case, the court’s decision turned specifically on the authority provided by federal immigration law and the statutory role of consular officers.
Unless the ruling is stayed or overturned on appeal, the State Department will no longer be able to enforce the 75-country immigrant visa suspension that took effect in January.
For applicants and American families affected by the policy, the immediate consequence is significant: their cases can once again move through the individualized immigrant visa process rather than being blocked solely because of nationality.
