A federal judge in Manhattan has invalidated a Trump administration policy that suspended immigrant visas for citizens from 75 countries. Judge Jeannette Vargas ruled on Friday that the directive was “contrary to law” and fell outside the statutory authority granted to Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
The policy, implemented in January, had halted the issuance of permanent-residence visas for individuals from nearly 40% of the world’s nations. The State Department justified the move by claiming it would prevent the entry of individuals likely to “take welfare and public benefits.” The list of affected countries included Brazil, Egypt, Haiti, Somalia, Russia, Jordan, and Georgia, with most nations located in the Caribbean, sub-Saharan Africa, the Balkans, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia. The State Department compiled this list using Council of Economic Advisers data, targeting countries where over 30 percent of immigrant households reportedly received public assistance.
Judge Vargas, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, took issue with the administration’s blanket approach. She noted that under existing law, an immigrant can only be denied entry as a “public charge” after a consular officer conducts an individualized assessment of their specific finances, health, skills, age, and family circumstances. However, evidence entered into the case record included a cable from Rubio to diplomatic posts directing officers to refuse applicants even when they provided evidence that they could overcome a public charge determination. “The outcome is predetermined,” Vargas wrote in her ruling. “The visa will be refused.”
The court found that the policy violated a 1965 law prohibiting nationality-based discrimination in visa issuance and improperly stripped consular officers of their discretion to evaluate individual cases. While the ruling reverses visa denials based solely on this policy, it does not affect denials issued on other legal grounds. The judge did rule in favor of the administration on one narrow procedural point, agreeing that the policy did not require a formal public comment period before implementation.
The lawsuit was brought by six US citizens who were blocked from sponsoring relatives from countries including Ghana, Ethiopia, Guatemala, and Jamaica, as well as five Colombian nationals who were denied job-based visas. In its defense, the administration cited a 2018 Supreme Court decision that upheld a previous travel ban. Judge Vargas distinguished the two cases, noting that while the earlier ruling focused on presidential authority over entry, the current case centered on the legal limits of visa issuance.
The court has ordered both parties to submit proposals by September 11 regarding the resolution of the remaining aspects of the case. The administration retains the right to appeal the decision. Representatives for the Justice Department and the White House have not yet provided comments on the ruling. The report also notes that but did not apply to nonimmigrant visas such as tourist or student visas, the visa ban halted permanent-residence visas for people joining family members or taking jobs in the US. The report also notes that “The visa will be refused.” The policy, she said, ran afoul of a 1965 law barring discrimination by nationality in granting visas, and of a separate provision denying the secretary of state any say over how consular officers decide individual cases. The report also notes that the administration’s legal team leaned on a 2018 Supreme Court decision upholding the third version of Trump’s first-term travel ban, which barred entry by nationals of several countries, most of them majority-Muslim, in arguing their case. The report also notes that whereas the visa ban case rested on a different question: whether a visa may be issued at all, but Vargas said that case turned on the president’s power to decide who may enter the country.