In a ruling that carries extraordinary urgency for tens of thousands of immigration lottery winners,
Judge Edward J. Davila of the Northern District of California granted class certification in part and granted a preliminary injunction in part
on August 28, 2026,
temporarily vacating three policies that had frozen Diversity Visa processing and ordering the government to return to ordinary adjudication
.
The decision in Medani, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 26-cv-6332 (N.D. Cal.), represents the most sweeping judicial intervention to date in the ongoing legal battle over the Trump administration's suspension of the Diversity Visa (DV) program — a program that makes up to 55,000 immigrant visas available annually to nationals of countries with historically low rates of immigration to the United States.
The Policies Under Challenge
The plaintiffs challenged three related barriers: the USCIS hold on pending Diversity Visa adjustment-of-status applications; the Department of State's separate pause on Diversity Visa issuance; and the 75-country pause as it affected DV applicants from listed nations.
The chain of restrictions began on December 19, 2025, when
USCIS issued a policy memorandum (PM-602-0193) directing USCIS personnel to place a hold on all pending adjustment of status, ancillary benefits, and associated waiver applications for noncitizens applying for adjustment of status under the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program
. One day later,
the December 2025 suspension had temporarily stopped U.S. Embassies and Consulates from issuing Diversity Visas while the government reviewed screening and vetting procedures
.
The Department of Homeland Security froze DV program processing shortly after the mass shooting at Brown University, and the suspect in the case was a green card holder that immigrated to the U.S. in 2017 through the diversity visa program.
A third layer was added in early 2026 with
the DOS "Notice Pausing Visa Approval for 75 Countries" (Feb. 2, 2026, effective Jan. 21, 2026), requiring refusal of immigrant visa applicants from 75 countries pending new public charge guidance
.
What the Court Ordered
Judge Davila's order temporarily vacated all three policies and imposed affirmative obligations on the federal agencies involved.
USCIS is ordered, "to the extent practicable and in good faith, to take all reasonable steps during the remainder of the Diversity Visa fiscal year to resume ordinary adjudication of plaintiffs' pending adjustment of status applications without applying" PM-602-0193.
The court ordered the Department of State, to the extent practicable and in good faith, to take all reasonable steps during the remainder of the Diversity Visa fiscal year to reconsider applications refused solely under either State Department pause and to resume ordinary adjudication of pending cases.
Critically, the court did not limit relief to the named plaintiffs.
Judge Davila also certified three nationwide subclasses of Diversity Visa selectees and their eligible family members in Medani v. Trump, extending the preliminary relief beyond the individual plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit.
With respect to USCIS specifically,
the Court certified the following subclass: "all selectees and derivative beneficiaries under the FY-2026 Diversity Visa Program who are subject to the USCIS DV Hold imposed by Policy Memorandum PM-602-0193."
The Legal Reasoning
The court held the policies are final agency action despite their "temporary" framing, and that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claims because the agencies offered no reasoned explanation for categorical suspensions, considered no alternatives, and ignored reliance interests.
The court's analysis drew on prior rulings.
The district court in Ivanov v. Trump very recently held in a motion for summary judgment that these same three policies are arbitrary and capricious under the APA.
The court followed Ivanov v. Trump (D.D.C.), which reached the same conclusion on summary judgment as to named plaintiffs; the 75-Country Pause was separately vacated in Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. v. Rubio (S.D.N.Y.).
Government Response
USCIS confirmed the order in an alert dated September 4, 2026, adding that it "strongly disagrees with the Court's order but will follow its terms pending possible further judicial review."
On the State Department side, the response has been more concrete.
Its updated diversity visa issuance guidance, last revised August 31, 2026, states that as of August 28, 2026, in accordance with the court's order in Medani, the December 2025 pause of diversity visa issuance is no longer in effect.
The Race Against the Clock
The September 30, 2026, fiscal year deadline makes this ruling both a lifeline and a challenge.
Timing is especially important for DV-2026 applicants because Diversity Visas generally must be issued by September 30, 2026. If a visa number is not issued by the end of the fiscal year, the opportunity may be lost.
For DV-2026, the Department of State received 20,822,624 qualified entries and registered approximately 129,516 prospective applicants, including principal selectees and their spouses and children.
With approximately 52,000 visa numbers available after statutory reductions, the sheer volume of cases that must be processed in the remaining weeks presents a formidable logistical challenge.
The order does not mean automatic visa issuance, removal of ordinary eligibility checks, extension of September 30, or a final judgment in the entire lawsuit.
Rather, it restores the ordinary adjudication process that had been frozen for over eight months.
Davila instructed both sides to submit a joint status report by September 18 on the status of adjudications and to propose a schedule for continued litigation.
Practical Implications for Applicants
For DV-2026 selectees, time is the most critical factor.
Interview availability at posts serving high-volume markets, document readiness, medical exam scheduling, and any case-specific administrative processing all have to resolve inside the same shrinking window.
Immigration attorneys are advising affected applicants to act immediately.
Applicants whose cases were refused or delayed only because of the DV issuance pause may wish to contact the appropriate U.S. embassy or consulate, or the Kentucky Consular Center, as applicable, to ask about next steps.
Applicants with pending cases should continue monitoring their case status, attend any scheduled interviews, and respond quickly to requests
from USCIS or the State Department.
What Comes Next
The Medani decision does not end the litigation. The preliminary injunction temporarily vacates the challenged policies while the case continues. Whether the government will seek an emergency stay or appeal remains to be seen, given USCIS's stated disagreement with the ruling.
For the approximately 129,000 DV-2026 registrants and their families, the next 19 days represent what may be their only window to complete a green card process that was frozen for most of the fiscal year.
Unused FY-2026 diversity visa numbers expire on September 30, 2026, and a case that is active but uninterviewed on October 1 is a case that ended.
Anyone affected by this ruling should consult with a qualified immigration attorney as soon as possible to assess their options and take immediate steps to advance their case before the fiscal year closes.
---
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you are a DV-2026 selectee affected by these policies, please contact ClinchLaw for a consultation about your specific situation.