A federal judge in Manhattan has struck down one of the Trump administration's broadest legal immigration restrictions, vacating a State Department policy that suspended immigrant visa processing for nationals of 75 countries — nearly 40% of the world's nations.
In a 61-page decision issued Friday, August 22, U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas found that the policy was "contrary to law" and was "in excess" of Secretary of State Marco Rubio's legal authority.
The judge ruled the policy was "patently unlawful" and conflicted with federal immigration law, which explicitly stripped the secretary of state of authority over consular officers' adjudication of immigrant visas.
Background: The 75-Country Visa Freeze
On January 14, 2026, the State Department announced via its X.com account that it was pausing all immigrant visa processing for applicants from 75 countries, effective January 21, including countries like Brazil, Iran, Russia and Somalia.
The suspension affected applicants from Latin American countries including Brazil, Colombia and Uruguay; Balkan nations such as Bosnia and Albania; South Asian countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh; and many nations in Africa, the Middle East and the Caribbean.
The State Department drew its list from Council of Economic Advisers data, targeting nations where more than 30 percent of immigrant households received some form of public assistance.
When the ban was issued, the State Department said the policy would "remain active until the U.S. can ensure that new immigrants will not extract wealth from the American people."
The visa ban halted permanent-residence visas for people joining family members or taking jobs in the US, but did not apply to nonimmigrant visas such as tourist or student visas.
The Court's Legal Reasoning
Judge Vargas's ruling rested on two core findings: the policy violated the Immigration and Nationality Act's (INA) anti-discrimination provisions and it usurped the exclusive authority Congress granted to consular officers.
The court held that the ban exceeds the Secretary of State's statutory and regulatory authority and violates Section 1152(a)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965's prohibition on nationality-based discrimination in issuing a visa.
Judge Vargas wrote that "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."
She found that 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."
Under the law, an immigrant can only be turned away as a likely "public charge" — someone expected to depend on government support — after a consular officer weighs that person's own finances, age, health, skills and family situation.
Judge Vargas found that, in practice, US officers were ordered to reject visas for applicants, even those who could support themselves, solely based on the country they came from.
Vargas cited a U.S. diplomatic cable that instructed consulates to refuse immigrant visas to applicants who had already been approved but whose printed visas hadn't left the consulate.
The administration attempted to defend its policy by relying on the Supreme Court's 2018 Trump v. Hawaii decision, which upheld the first-term travel ban targeting several majority-Muslim countries.
But Vargas said that case turned on the president's power to decide who may enter the country, whereas the visa ban case rested on a different question: whether a visa may be issued at all.
The administration did win on one narrower point, with the judge agreeing the policy was not the kind of formal rule that must be opened to public comment before being implemented.
What the Ruling Means in Practice
The court vacated the 75-country policy, meaning the government can no longer rely on that policy alone to prevent immigrant visa issuance.
The decision also vacated and set aside any visa denial based solely on the ban and ordered the State Department to restore lawful, case-by-case evaluation of visa applications.
The court rejected the government's attempt to use concerns about "public charge" as the basis for a nationality-wide restriction. Public charge remains a valid ground of inadmissibility, but it must generally be evaluated based on the individual applicant's circumstances — not simply the country listed on the applicant's passport.
For applicants from affected countries, this means that consular officers must return to conducting the individualized assessments required by law.
The pause had previously stopped applications for family members, including spouses and children of U.S. citizens located abroad in the named countries, as well as immigrant workers being recruited by U.S. employers.
Reactions and What Comes Next
Immigrant rights organizations that brought the lawsuit celebrated the decision.
Anna Gallagher, executive director of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC), said: "We welcome this ruling because, at its heart, this case is about keeping families together. The suspension of lawful visa processing across 75 countries separated spouses, parents, and children who were simply following the legal immigration process."
Diana Konate, Deputy Executive Director for Policy and Advocacy at African Communities Together, an associational plaintiff in the case, called it "a tremendous victory for the rule of law," adding that "this unlawful and racist ban caused immeasurable harm, cruelly keeping families and loved ones apart."
A State Department spokesperson told NPR the Trump administration is "protecting the American people by upholding the highest standards of screening and vetting of visa applicants," adding that the administration doesn't comment on ongoing litigation.
Vargas, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, gave both sides until September 11 to propose how to resolve what remains of the case.
The administration can appeal the ruling.
The Friday ruling is the latest example of a Democrat-appointed federal court blocking key aspects of the Trump administration's legal immigration agenda, as another court in June prevented the administration from enacting a policy that would have imposed a $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa applications.
Practical Guidance for Affected Applicants
Immigrant visa applicants from any of the 75 affected countries should be aware of several key takeaways from this ruling:
- The blanket ban has been vacated. The State Department is now required to resume processing immigrant visa applications from all 75 countries under standard legal procedures.
- Prior denials must be reconsidered. If your immigrant visa was refused solely because of the 75-country policy, that refusal has been set aside. Consular officers must reassess your application based on your individual circumstances as the law requires.
- Public charge assessments continue. The ruling does not eliminate public charge as a ground of inadmissibility. Consular officers will still evaluate whether applicants are likely to become public charges — but they must do so on a case-by-case basis, considering factors such as finances, age, health, skills, and family support.
- An appeal is possible. The Trump administration may appeal this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which could alter the current legal landscape.
- Consult an immigration attorney. Given the rapidly evolving legal environment surrounding immigration policy, applicants affected by this ban should seek guidance from qualified immigration counsel to understand how the ruling applies to their specific case and to preserve their rights during any appeal.
ClinchLaw will continue to monitor this case and provide updates as the legal situation develops. If you or a family member have been affected by the 75-country visa ban, contact our office for a consultation.