A federal judge in Rhode Island delivered a major blow to the Trump administration's immigration enforcement agenda on Friday, vacating a series of policies that had frozen immigration benefits for nationals of 39 countries for more than six months.
In a 135-page opinion, Chief Judge John McConnell of the U.S. District Court in Rhode Island found the sweeping limits on legal immigration benefits to be arbitrary and capricious, contrary to federal law.
The ruling opens the door for hundreds of thousands of people with pending immigration-related applications to have these benefits unpaused.
The Four Policies Struck Down
The 135-page ruling struck down four Trump administration policies, including a global asylum hold; a benefits hold on work permits, green cards, and naturalizations; a comprehensive review policy to look at already-decided cases; and the country-specific ban, which required officers to treat certain nationalities as riskier.
In a sharply worded opinion, Judge McConnell wrote: "In enacting its latest immigration policies, USCIS: claims statutory and regulatory authority that it does not possess; makes decisions without the reasoned explanations that it must provide; acts without regard for the reliance interests of applicants that it must consider; and justifies its actions with pretextual concerns of 'national security' that mask anti-immigrant sentiments that it is forbidden from letting influence its decision-making."
"In legal terms that means USCIS's actions are contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious."
Origins of the Freeze
Last November, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services indefinitely suspended asylum adjudications and froze immigration applications for people affected by a travel ban implemented after a man from Afghanistan allegedly shot two National Guard troops in Washington, D.C.
President Trump issued Proclamation 10949 in June 2025, restricting entry for nationals of nineteen countries, and then expanded the list to thirty-nine countries through Proclamation 10998 in December 2025.
The December 2, 2025 memorandum (PM-602-0192) imposed the initial adjudication hold tied to the nineteen-country list and placed a nationwide hold on asylum applications. The January 1, 2026 memorandum (PM-602-0194) expanded the hold to cover all thirty-nine Travel Ban Countries.
Affected countries included Iran, Nigeria, Venezuela, and Afghanistan.
The full list spans nations across Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East —
including Afghanistan, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burma/Myanmar, Burundi, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gabon, The Gambia, Haiti, Iran, Laos, Libya, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Togo, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
Judge Rejects National Security Justification
Judge McConnell was unsparing in his assessment of the administration's stated rationale.
In his order, McConnell called out Trump and former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's posts and comments following the shooting, noting that "both the President and former Secretary's statements came in the direct aftermath of the 2025 Washington, D.C. Shooting. Indeed, they seem to attribute the alleged act of a single individual of Afghan descent to the entire population of Afghanistan, as well as individuals from thirty-eight other countries."
He pointed to statements from President Donald Trump himself, who said at one rally last year that he was pausing migration "from hellholes like Afghanistan, Haiti, Somalia and many other countries." The judge wrote that "the government effectively invites the court to shut its eyes and ignore the strong evidence of anti-immigrant animus before it. Doing so would require profound naiveté on the court's part."
The court pointed to the mandatory statutory and regulatory language governing asylum and withholding adjudications, noting that USCIS is not free to adjudicate some cases while indefinitely holding a subset of others based on country of birth.
Human Impact
The ruling paints a detailed picture of the harm caused by more than six months of inaction.
Judge McConnell wrote: "Over six months later, many of those individuals remain without work, without legal status, and without any meaningful ability to plan for their futures."
In his order, McConnell noted the immigrants affected by the policies he found unlawful "filed the appropriate paperwork, paid the required filing fees, submitted to the requested biometrics collections, and attended the necessary in person interviews."
The judge said that many of those affected by the pause had faced losing their jobs after their work permits expired, had been left without legal status, and had been separated from family members.
The ruling noted the pause threatened to push some immigrants in the country legally on time-limited visas to overstay the bounds of their status.
Shawn VanDiver, a Navy veteran who heads a coalition that supports Afghan resettlement efforts, said: "Just this week in Dallas and Fort Worth, we met people who feared losing jobs because delayed work permit renewals threatened their livelihoods, families who postponed education, travel, and homeownership because they did not know when their cases would be resolved, and future Americans who had expected to become citizens only to see their applications stall without explanation."
Who Brought the Case
The lawsuit was filed March 5 by a coalition of nonprofits and unions, including Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island, the Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts, and the Service Employees International Union.
Plaintiffs were also represented by Muslim Advocates, Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, South Asian American Justice Collaborative, and DeLuca, Weizenbaum, Barry & Revens Ltd.
Democracy Forward served as lead counsel.
"This ruling reaffirms a basic principle: the federal government cannot shut down lawful immigration pathways or discriminate against people based on where they come from," said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward.
Administration Response and What Comes Next
Department of Homeland Security general counsel James Percival was dismissive of the order, stating: "The Left has been running the same gambit with so called 'animus' claims since 2017. It is sabotage dressed in legal clothing."
Unlike the earlier preliminary injunction wins in other districts, which have generally limited relief to the named plaintiffs in those cases, the remedy here is vacatur of the underlying policies themselves. That carries far broader effect.
However, the road ahead remains uncertain.
The judgment vacates the challenged memoranda and grants declaratory relief, but it does not stop the federal government from asking for a stay during an appeal. If a stay is granted, many cases could remain stuck while higher courts weigh in.
Immigration attorneys expect DHS to appeal and very possibly to seek a stay. Until the dust settles, the status of pending cases for affected applicants could shift again, potentially more than once.
Practical Implications for Affected Applicants
For immigrants from the 39 affected countries, this ruling carries immediate and significant practical consequences:
- Naturalization ceremonies:
- Work permits:
- Nationality-based screening:
- Re-reviews vacated: The policy requiring USCIS to re-review previously approved immigration benefits has also been struck down.
Immigration legal groups are cautioning that even if the vacatur stands, USCIS will need time to remove case-management flags, revise internal guidance, and restart normal processing.
For employers, the ruling may help stabilize workforce planning where employees were previously unable to renew or obtain authorization. Further guidance from DHS and USCIS is expected as implementation of the court's decision moves forward.
Applicants affected by the freeze should consult with an immigration attorney to evaluate their individual cases and prepare for the resumption of processing. Given the likelihood of an appeal, developments could continue to shift in the coming weeks.
---
The case is Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island et al. v. USCIS, U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island.