A federal judge in Manhattan has overturned a Trump administration policy that suspended immigrant visa issuance for applicants from 75 countries, ruling that Secretary of State Marco Rubio exceeded the authority granted to him under federal immigration law.
U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, issued the decision Friday in the Southern District of New York and described the policy as contrary to law and beyond the statutory powers of the secretary of state.
The State Department introduced the visa suspension in January, targeting applicants from countries across Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East that the administration considered at elevated risk of becoming dependent on public assistance in the United States.
Under the policy, consular officers were instructed to evaluate applicants individually, but Vargas found that the process effectively guaranteed refusal for eligible applicants solely because they were nationals of one of the designated countries.
The judge ordered the government to set aside visa refusals made exclusively under the 75-country policy and revisit those cases in accordance with her ruling, while leaving intact visa denials based on other independent legal grounds.
Vargas said the directive effectively displaced consular officers from the role Congress assigned them under the Immigration and Nationality Act, which gives those officials responsibility for determining whether individual immigrant-visa applicants satisfy the legal requirements for admission.
The ruling stated that although consular officers technically processed the refusals, their individual determinations became largely meaningless because applicants covered by the policy were ultimately denied regardless of whether they had otherwise established eligibility.
The administration had argued that the refusals were legally authorized under Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, a provision governing visa refusals, but Vargas rejected that interpretation after finding that the government had not identified statutory authority allowing officials to deny visas to applicants who had already been determined to be eligible.
The judge also concluded that the policy conflicted with federal immigration provisions restricting nationality-based discrimination in immigrant-visa issuance and allowing refusals only when a legally recognized basis for ineligibility exists.
The countries affected by the suspension included Brazil, Colombia and Uruguay in Latin America, Bosnia and Albania in the Balkans, Pakistan and Bangladesh in South Asia, as well as numerous countries across Africa, the Middle East and the Caribbean.
When the policy was announced, the State Department said applicants from the designated nations faced a heightened risk of becoming public charges and relying on federal, state or local government resources after entering the United States.
The department had cited government economic data indicating that more than 30% of households with immigrants from the affected countries received some form of public assistance, while also instructing consular officials to apply heightened scrutiny to certain visa applicants.
The lawsuit challenging the policy was brought by the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., African Communities Together, prospective employment-based immigrants and U.S. citizens seeking to bring family members to the United States.
Immigration advocates welcomed the ruling, arguing that the suspension had separated families and prevented eligible immigrants from advancing through the legal immigration process despite having otherwise satisfied applicable requirements.
Anna Gallagher, executive director of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, said the decision represented an important affirmation of family unity and the rule of law, while African Communities Together described the ruling as a major victory for affected immigrant communities.
The Trump administration has pursued a broad immigration enforcement and restriction agenda, including additional travel and visa measures affecting people from numerous countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America, which officials have defended as necessary to strengthen screening and protect national security.
The State Department said it was committed to maintaining strict screening and vetting standards for visa applicants, but did not immediately provide a substantive response to the judge’s ruling concerning the 75-country suspension.
Vargas distinguished the case from the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision upholding the first Trump administration’s travel restrictions, noting that the earlier case involved presidential authority over entry into the United States, while the current dispute concerned the State Department’s authority to refuse immigrant visas to applicants otherwise eligible under federal law.
The decision represents another legal setback for the administration’s immigration agenda, following other court rulings that have challenged restrictions affecting asylum, work authorization, green cards, citizenship applications and other aspects of the immigration system.
The ruling does not prevent the government from denying visas when applicants fail to meet independent statutory requirements, but it eliminates refusals that were based solely on the nationality-based 75-country suspension and requires the affected cases to be reconsidered under the law.
