A federal judge in Manhattan has invalidated a Trump administration policy that suspended immigrant visas for citizens from 75 countries. Judge Jeannette Vargas of the Federal District Court ruled on Friday that the directive was “contrary to law” and exceeded the statutory authority held by Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
The policy, implemented in January, halted the issuance of permanent-residence visas for individuals seeking to join family members or accept employment in the United States. The State Department justified the move by claiming it would prevent the entry of individuals likely to “take welfare and public benefits.” The ban affected nearly 40% of the world’s nations, including Brazil, Egypt, Haiti, Somalia, Russia, and Colombia, though it did not apply to nonimmigrant categories such as student or tourist visas.
Judge Vargas, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, took issue with the State Department’s reliance on Council of Economic Advisers data, which targeted countries where more than 30% of immigrant households reportedly received public assistance. The court found that the policy effectively bypassed legal requirements for individual assessments. Under existing law, an immigrant can only be denied entry as a “public charge” after a consular officer conducts a personalized review of the applicant’s finances, age, health, skills, and family circumstances.
Evidence entered into the case record included a cable sent by Secretary Rubio to all diplomatic and consular posts. The document instructed officers to deny applicants even if they provided evidence demonstrating they could overcome a public charge refusal. “The outcome is predetermined,” Vargas wrote in her ruling. “The visa will be refused.” She noted that the policy violated a 1965 law prohibiting nationality-based discrimination in visa issuance and overstepped the secretary’s authority regarding individual consular decisions.
The lawsuit included six U.S. citizens who argued the ban prevented their relatives in Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, and Jamaica from obtaining visas. Additionally, five Colombian applicants seeking employment-based visas joined the case, with one individual receiving a denial notice explicitly citing the now-voided policy. While the judge ruled that the administration’s policy was not a formal rule requiring public comment—a minor win for the government—she rejected the administration’s reliance on a 2018 Supreme Court precedent regarding presidential travel powers.
Vargas distinguished the current case from the 2018 ruling, explaining that while a president has broad authority to decide who may enter the country, the visa ban case centered on the specific legal question of whether a visa could be issued at all. The court has ordered both parties to submit proposals by September 11 on how to resolve the remaining aspects of the case. While the administration may appeal the decision, the ruling mandates the reversal of any visa denials based solely on the invalidated policy, though denials resting on other legal grounds remain in effect. The report also notes that even where an officer also cited the ban, leaving the number of reversals expected unclear, denials that rested on other legal grounds stand. The report also notes that spanning the Caribbean, sub-Saharan Africa, the Balkans, the Middle East, Central Asia and Southeast Asia, and count several US partners among them, including Jordan, Egypt and Georgia, most of the 75 countries are non-European. 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 has reached out to the Justice Department and the White House for comment.
