President Donald Trump's immigration agenda suffered another legal setback on Friday after a federal judge struck down an administration policy that suspended the processing of immigrant visas for people from 75 countries, including Afghanistan, Iran, Russia and Somalia. The ruling is the latest in a series of court defeats for the administration's immigration policies. It follows a June decision in which a federal judge blocked another Trump administration measure that made it harder for immigrants from dozens of countries to obtain asylum, work permits, green cards and citizenship benefits.
The decision marks another challenge to Trump's efforts to tighten immigration restrictions during his second term. The affected countries span Africa, Asia, Europe and the Middle East, potentially impacting thousands of people seeking to immigrate to the United States. The case also raises questions about the extent of executive branch authority over visa policy and whether broad nationality-based restrictions can be imposed without explicit congressional authorization.
District Judge Jeannette Vargas in New York vacated the State Department policy, ruling that Secretary of State Marco Rubio exceeded his authority when he ordered consular officials to stop processing immigrant visas from 75 countries whose nationals the administration deemed more likely to require public assistance in the United States. Vargas wrote that the policy was "contrary to law and in excess of statutory authority" and conflicted with the Immigration and Nationality Act. She found that Congress gave consular officers the responsibility to determine visa eligibility on an individual basis rather than through blanket restrictions tied to nationality.
According to the ruling, the policy "categorically prohibits the issuance of immigrant visas based upon the nationality of the applicant," undermining the statutory framework established by Congress. The policy applied to nationals of 75 countries, including Afghanistan, Iran, Russia and Somalia, among others. The Trump administration had argued that immigrants from those nations were more likely to rely on public assistance programs after arriving in the United States.
The lawsuit was brought by two nonprofit organizations along with 11 individuals affected by the restrictions. Plaintiffs included people whose relatives had been denied visas as well as foreign nationals seeking to immigrate through employment-based petitions. Anna Gallagher, executive director of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC), said in a statement that the ruling may enable some families separated by the visa restrictions to continue the immigration process, saying, "We welcome this ruling because, at its heart, this case is about keeping families together." African Communities Together, another plaintiff in the case, described the decision as "a tremendous victory for the rule of law," and argued that the policy had unfairly separated families.
The State Department defended the administration's broader approach to immigration screening, saying it was focused on "protecting the American people by upholding the highest standards of screening and vetting of visa applicants." The department declined to comment on the lawsuit because litigation remains ongoing. When the policy was first implemented, the State Department cited data indicating that more than 30 percent of households with immigrants from the affected countries received some form of public assistance. Officials said the measure was part of an effort to ensure prospective immigrants would not become a charge to the public.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
