Federal Judge Blocks Trump-Era Visa Ban Targeting 75 Countries

A federal judge in Manhattan invalidated on Friday a Trump-era policy that suspended immigrant visa processing for applicants from 75 countries, declaring the measure unlawful and beyond the legal authority granted to Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Judge Janet Vargas of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that the State Department’s January policy was “clearly illegal” and inconsistent with the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, which explicitly strips the secretary of state of authority over consular officers’ adjudication of immigrant visas.

What the court found unlawful

In her written opinion, Vargas stated: “This policy—which categorically bars the issuance of immigrant visas based solely on an applicant’s nationality—constitutes a direct nullification of this statutory framework,” according to Reuters.

The State Department’s suspension, also implemented in January, affected applicants from Latin American nations including Brazil, Colombia, and Uruguay; Balkan countries such as Bosnia and Albania; South Asian states including Pakistan and Bangladesh; and numerous countries across Africa, the Middle East, and the Caribbean.

Rationale cited by the State Department

The department asserted that applicants from those countries were “highly likely to become a public charge” and would rely on resources provided by local, state, and federal governments in the United States. The department has not yet responded to a request for comment on the court’s ruling.

Vargas, appointed by former President Joe Biden, issued the decision in a lawsuit filed by the Catholic Legal Immigration Network and African Communities Together—two migrant rights organizations—as well as individual immigrant visa applicants and U.S. citizens sponsoring family members from the designated countries.

Context of the Trump administration’s immigration stance

The Trump administration pursued a stringent immigration enforcement posture, describing it as aimed at strengthening domestic security.

Human rights groups contend that this campaign violated freedom of expression and due process rights, and fostered an unsafe environment—particularly for racial minorities—who have voiced concerns about racial discrimination.