A U.S. District Court judge in Manhattan has struck down the Trump administration’s ban on immigrant visas from 75 countries, finding the policy “contrary to law” and beyond the statutory authority of Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Background of the visa restriction
In January, the State Department halted the issuance of immigrant visas for nearly 40% of the world’s nations, including Brazil, Colombia, Egypt, Haiti, Somalia and Russia. The department said the move was intended to prevent the entry of individuals who might become a “public charge” – those expected to rely on government assistance.
Judge’s ruling
Judge Jeannette Vargas of the Federal District Court in Manhattan concluded that the State Department’s rationale was unlawful. She noted that, under existing law, an immigrant can be denied a visa as a likely public charge only after a consular officer evaluates the applicant’s finances, age, health, skills and family situation. Instead, officers were ordered to refuse visas solely based on the applicant’s country of origin, even when evidence showed they could support themselves.
Vargas wrote that the outcome was predetermined: “The visa will be refused.” She determined the policy violated a 1965 law prohibiting discrimination by nationality in visa decisions and a separate provision that bars the secretary of state from directing how consular officers assess individual cases.
Scope of the ban
The ban affected permanent‑residence visas for family reunification and employment, but it did not apply to nonimmigrant visas such as tourist or student visas. Denials based on other legal grounds remain in effect, leaving the total number of reversals uncertain.
Who challenged the policy
Six U.S. citizens who filed family‑based petitions argued that the ban blocked relatives in Ghana, Jamaica, Guatemala and Ethiopia from obtaining visas. Additionally, five Colombian nationals who applied for job‑based visas were part of the lawsuit, with at least one receiving a denial that cited the policy.
Legal context
The administration succeeded on a narrower issue, with the judge agreeing that the policy was not a formal rule requiring public comment before implementation. In its defense, the administration cited a 2018 Supreme Court decision upholding a prior travel ban, but Vargas distinguished that case as involving the president’s authority to admit or exclude entrants, whereas the visa ban concerned the issuance of visas themselves.
Next steps
Judge Vargas, a Biden appointee, gave both parties until September 11 to propose a resolution for the remaining issues. The administration retains the right to appeal the ruling.
CNN has reached out to the Justice Department and the White House for comment.
Original reporting: El Paso News (HLL/CB) — read the source article.
