In a decisive ruling on Friday, U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas, a Biden‑appointed judge in Manhattan, struck down the State Department’s policy that halted immigrant‑visa issuance to nationals of 75 countries. The judge found that Secretary of State Marco Rubio lacked the legal authority to impose blanket denials on applicants who had otherwise met eligibility requirements.
Policy background and legal challenge
The policy, announced in January, targeted countries across Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East that the State Department deemed at high risk of becoming dependent on public benefits. Consular officers were instructed to review each applicant individually, but even those who provided additional evidence of self‑sufficiency were still denied visas if they hailed from a listed country.
Four plaintiffs brought the lawsuit: the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC); African Communities Together (ACT), a Harlem‑based immigrant advocacy group; five prospective employment‑based immigrants; and six U.S. citizens seeking to reunite with family members abroad.
Judge Vargas’ findings
In a 61‑page opinion, Judge Vargas wrote that the policy “is contrary to law and was issued in excess of Secretary Rubio’s statutory authority.” She emphasized that the directive effectively created a nationality‑based ban on nearly 40 percent of the world’s countries, sidelining the consular officers whose role Congress assigned to evaluate individual eligibility.
Vargas noted that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) expressly limits the Secretary of State’s authority and bars discrimination based on nationality in immigrant‑visa issuance. The judge rejected the administration’s reliance on INA Section 221(g), stating that the government failed to identify any law permitting a visa denial when an applicant had already been found eligible.
Implications of the ruling
The decision does not affect visa refusals based on other lawful grounds of ineligibility, but it eliminates any denial that relied solely on the 75‑country freeze. All affected cases must now be returned to the State Department for further processing consistent with the law.
Vargas described the policy’s logic as “Orwellian,” arguing that the mandatory refusals, even when carried out by consular officers, usurped the statutory role Congress gave those officers. She also distinguished the case from the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling upholding the first‑term travel ban, noting that the travel ban involved presidential authority over entry, whereas this case concerned the State Department’s authority to deny immigrant visas.
Reactions and next steps
Fox News Digital reached out to the State Department for comment; a response was not immediately available. The plaintiffs hailed the ruling as a victory for constitutional protections and for families seeking to reunite across borders.
The decision underscores ongoing legal battles over immigration policy and the balance of power between the executive branch and Congress. It also highlights the role of faith‑based and community organizations in defending the rights of immigrant families.
Original reporting: Fox News (HLL/CB) — read the source article.
