Judge Strikes Down Trump Administration’s 75-Country Immigrant Visa Ban

A federal judge has struck down a Trump administration policy that suspended the issuance of immigrant visas to nationals of 75 countries, ruling that the State Department exceeded its legal authority by effectively denying visas based on nationality.

U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas of the Southern District of New York vacated the policy on Aug. 21, finding that it violated federal immigration law and improperly prevented consular officers from making individual decisions about whether applicants qualified for immigrant visas.

The ruling also set aside visa refusals that were based solely on the policy, potentially allowing affected applicants to have their cases reconsidered.

What was the 75-country visa policy?

The State Department announced the policy in January 2026, indefinitely suspending the issuance of immigrant visas to nationals of 75 countries, including Afghanistan, Brazil, Colombia, Egypt, Haiti, Iran, Russia, Somalia and Yemen.

The administration said the suspension was intended to prevent the admission of immigrants who might become dependent on public benefits in the United States. The list covered nearly 40% of the world’s countries.

The suspension applied to immigrant visas, including visas for people seeking to permanently move to the United States through family- and employment-based immigration. It did not apply to nonimmigrant visas such as tourist and student visas.

Under existing immigration law, consular officers can deny an immigrant visa if they determine that an applicant is likely to become a “public charge.” But that determination generally requires an individualized assessment of the applicant’s circumstances, including factors such as age, health, financial resources, education and skills.

The 75-country policy went further. According to court records, consular officers were instructed not to issue immigrant visas to nationals of the affected countries even when an applicant could demonstrate that they were unlikely to become a public charge.

Why did the judge strike down the policy?

Judge Vargas found that the State Department could not replace individualized visa decisions with a categorical restriction based on nationality.

Federal immigration law gives consular officers authority to determine whether individual applicants qualify for immigrant visas. The Immigration and Nationality Act also prohibits discrimination based on nationality in the issuance of immigrant visas.

In her ruling, Vargas found that the State Department policy conflicted with both requirements because it predetermined the outcome for applicants from the 75 countries.

“The outcome is predetermined,” Vargas wrote of the policy. “The visa will be refused.”

The court concluded that the policy was “contrary to law” and issued beyond Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s statutory authority.

The administration had pointed to the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision upholding a version of President Trump’s first-term travel ban. But Vargas distinguished that case, finding that the earlier dispute concerned presidential authority over who may enter the United States, while the current case involved the separate question of whether the State Department could prohibit consular officers from issuing visas to otherwise eligible applicants.

What happens to applicants affected by the visa suspension?

The ruling vacates the State Department policy, meaning the 75-country suspension can no longer serve as the basis for refusing an immigrant visa.

It also sets aside previous visa refusals that were based solely on the policy. Those cases can return to consular officers for consideration under the normal immigration rules.

That does not mean every applicant previously denied a visa will now be approved. Applicants must still satisfy all other eligibility requirements, including applicable public charge rules. And visa denials based on separate legal grounds remain in place.

For applicants whose cases were stalled or refused only because of the 75-country suspension, however, the ruling removes the nationality-based barrier and restores individualized review.

Who challenged the policy?

The lawsuit was brought by the Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC), African Communities Together, and 11 individuals affected by the suspension.

The individual plaintiffs included six U.S. citizens who had filed family-based petitions for relatives as well as five people seeking to immigrate through employment-based pathways.

The plaintiffs argued that the policy prevented people who otherwise qualified for immigrant visas from completing the legal immigration process solely because of their nationality.

Could the visa ban return?

The Aug. 21 ruling is a significant setback for the policy, but the legal fight may not be over.

The Trump administration can appeal the decision. Judge Vargas also gave the parties until Sept. 11 to submit proposals addressing remaining issues in the case.

The State Department said following the ruling that the administration is focused on maintaining high standards for screening and vetting visa applicants but declined to comment further on ongoing litigation.

For now, the ruling means immigrant visa applicants from the affected countries should once again receive case-by-case consideration rather than being refused solely because of the country they come from.

{{cta-component-horizontal-aligned}}