Judge rules visa suspension unlawful

A federal judge in New York has struck down a Trump administration policy that suspended the processing of immigrant visas for nationals of 75 countries, ruling that the measure was "contrary to law" and exceeded the statutory authority of Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas of the Southern District of New York issued the ruling on Friday, setting aside the policy as "patently unlawful" and in conflict with federal immigration law. Vargas, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, found that Rubio's directive "runs afoul" of the Immigration and Nationality Act by mandating the refusal of visas to eligible applicants without any basis in law.

"Congress imbued these officers with exclusive authority and discretion to determine if an immigrant is eligible for a visa based upon review of specific and detailed criteria set forth in the statute," Vargas wrote. "The Policy, which categorically prohibits the issuance of immigrant visas based upon the nationality of the applicant, represents a direct abrogation of this statutory scheme."

In her ruling, Vargas wrote: "In many ways, this is not a challenging case." She noted that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 prohibits discrimination based on nationality in the issuance of immigrant visas and that all visa applications must be decided on an individual basis.

Policy background and scope

The State Department announced the suspension on January 14, with the policy taking effect on January 21. It applied to nationals of 75 countries, including Afghanistan, Iran, Russia, Somalia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, Egypt, Iraq, Nigeria, Thailand and Yemen, among others. The policy covered nearly 40% of the world's countries, according to court documents.

The department said the move was intended to prevent the entry of people who would "take welfare and public benefits," arguing that applicants from the affected countries were "at a high risk for becoming a public charge and recourse to local, state and federal government resources in the United States." The department said more than 30% of households with immigrants from the designated countries received some form of public assistance, citing data from the Council of Economic Advisers.

The suspension did not apply to nonimmigrant visas, such as tourist or student visas, but it did cover immigrant visas for permanent residence, family reunification and employment-based petitions.

A State Department cable obtained by The Associated Press instructed officers to deny visas even where an applicant provided additional evidence that they overcame the public-charge refusal. Vargas said the policy, in practice, directed officers to reject applications based solely on an applicant's nationality, including cases where applicants could demonstrate they were capable of supporting themselves.

Legal challenge and plaintiffs

The policy was challenged by two nonprofit organizations — the Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC) and African Communities Together — along with 11 individuals: six whose family members had been refused visas and five who had filed employment-based petitions to come to the United States.

Anna Gallagher, CLINIC's executive director, said in a statement: "We welcome this ruling because, at its heart, this case is about keeping families together." She added that "Catholic social teaching calls us to uphold the dignity of every person and recognize the family as the foundation of society."

Diana Konate, deputy executive director of African Communities Together, called the policy "this unlawful and racist ban" and said it "caused immeasurable harm, cruelly keeping families and loved ones apart." She said: "Today, we are elated to tell our community members: this ban is no more."

Hasan Shafiqullah, an attorney with the Legal Aid Society, said the policy was based on a generalization and did not make sense because many applicants had jobs or family support lined up. Susan Welber, supervising attorney at The Legal Aid Society, said the ban was "premised on a fiction" that residents of the targeted nations are likely to use public resources. Antionette Dozier, senior attorney for Western Center on Law & Poverty, said the ruling means a return to fair, case-by-case review for the affected families.

Ruling's effect and next steps

The ruling vacated the policy in its entirety and set aside immigrant visa refusals that were based solely on the policy, sending those cases back to consular officers for reconsideration. The court rejected the government's request to send the policy back to the State Department for further consideration and issued declaratory relief. The parties must submit proposals by September 11 on how to proceed with the remaining claims in the case.

The ruling does not require the State Department to issue visas to any particular applicant, and consular officers may still deny a visa based on an individualized public-charge finding or another statutory ground of inadmissibility.

The State Department, which said Saturday it was "protecting the American people by upholding the highest standards of screening and vetting of visa applicants" and would not comment on pending litigation, has not indicated whether it will appeal. A State Department spokesperson, Tommy Pigott, told Fox News Digital that "American taxpayer-funded public benefits belong to Americans" and that "this rogue judge's misguided opinion wrongfully undermines the longstanding legal authority of the Secretary of State." He said the administration would "keep fighting for commonsense visa policies that put America First."

The ruling is the latest in a series of legal setbacks for the Trump administration's immigration agenda. In June, a federal judge struck down a different Trump administration policy affecting asylum, work permits, green cards and citizenship applications, and the Supreme Court struck down President Trump's executive order banning birthright citizenship.

Perspectives

Trump administration: The policy was a necessary measure to ensure that immigrants are financially self-sufficient and do not burden American taxpayers. State Department officials argue the ruling undermines the Secretary of State's authority and have vowed to continue defending commonsense visa policies.

Immigrant rights groups: The policy was an unlawful, nationality-based ban that discriminated against applicants and cruelly separated families. They welcomed the ruling as a victory for due process and family unity, emphasizing that visa decisions must be made on an individual basis.