A federal judge on Friday, August 22, 2026, struck down a Trump administration policy that banned the issuance of immigrant visas to individuals from 75 countries. The ruling determined that the policy violated federal immigration law by discriminating based on nationality.
District Judge Jeannette A. Vargas, presiding in the Southern District of New York, stated that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 prohibits discrimination based on nationality in the issuance of immigrant visas. The Trump administration’s policy, however, barred certain individuals from receiving immigrant visas solely due to their nationality, according to the judge.
Earlier this year, the State Department had announced a halt to immigrant visas for citizens of Afghanistan, Brazil, Yemen, and dozens of other nations. The Trump administration had asserted that people from these countries were likely to require public assistance if they entered the United States. Judge Vargas’s ruling indicated that the policy would have prevented the U.S. government from issuing immigrant visas even when consular officers had individually assessed applicants and found them likely to be self-sufficient.
The judge cited a U.S. diplomatic cable that had instructed consulates to refuse immigrant visas to applicants who had already been approved but whose printed visas had not yet left the consulate. Judge Vargas concluded that the Trump administration’s policy was contrary to law and exceeded the authority of Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The ruling vacated the visa ban and also set aside any visa denials that were based solely on this policy.
A State Department spokesperson stated that the Trump administration is protecting the American people by upholding high standards of screening and vetting for visa applicants, adding that the administration does not comment on ongoing litigation. When the ban was initially issued, the State Department indicated it would remain active until the U.S. could ensure new immigrants would not extract wealth from the American people.
This ban was part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to limit both legal and illegal immigration. In June, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional right to birthright citizenship, rejecting an executive order Trump had signed that attempted to bar citizenship for babies born in the U.S. to parents who either entered the country illegally or were living and working in the U.S. legally with temporary visas. That executive order never took effect due to lower court rulings finding it unconstitutional.
Susan Welber, a supervising attorney at The Legal Aid Society, which represented plaintiffs in the lawsuit, described the 75-country visa ban as premised on a fiction that residents of the targeted nations are likely to use public resources if they come to the U.S. Welber emphasized that fighting policies based on fictions and prejudices contributes to a more just immigration system.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit included the Catholic Immigration Legal Network and African Communities Together, both of which provide immigration legal services. Additionally, six U.S. citizens who filed family-based immigration petitions for relatives and five intending immigrants who filed employment-based petitions on their own behalf were among the plaintiffs. Anna Gallagher, executive director of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, stated that the suspension of lawful visa processing across 75 countries separated spouses, parents, and children who were following the legal immigration process. Lawyers for the plaintiffs indicated that Friday’s ruling will allow their clients to proceed through the immigration process.
