A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration’s freeze on immigrant visa approvals from 75 countries, ruling that Secretary of State Marco Rubio exceeded his legal authority by directing officials to deny visas to applicants who had otherwise qualified under existing immigration rules.
U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas, a Biden appointee based in Manhattan, overturned the State Department policy Friday and ordered the government to reconsider visa refusals issued solely because of the country-based restriction.
“The Court holds that the Policy is contrary to law and was issued in excess of Secretary Rubio’s statutory authority,” Vargas wrote in her 61-page opinion.
Judge Rules Visa Freeze Overstepped Legal Authority
The policy, introduced by the State Department in January, temporarily halted immigrant visa processing for nationals from 75 countries that officials identified as having a higher risk of applicants becoming dependent on public benefits.
The affected nations stretched across multiple regions, including Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East.
Under Rubio’s directive, consular officers were instructed to review applicants individually. However, the judge found that even applicants who overcame concerns about public assistance eligibility could still be denied solely because they came from one of the listed countries.
“While the Policy permits consular officers to exercise their normal functions up to a point, whatever determinations they make as to eligibility for the applicants subject to the Policy are ultimately irrelevant,” Vargas wrote. “The outcome is predetermined. The visa will be refused.”
Court Says Policy Created Nationality-Based Restrictions
Vargas argued that the policy effectively created a broad nationality-based barrier affecting immigrants from nearly 40% of the world’s countries.
According to the ruling, the directive weakened the role of consular officers, who Congress had assigned the responsibility of determining whether individual applicants met visa requirements.
“The Policy thus displaces consular officers from the role Congress assigned them in the visa issuance process,” Vargas wrote.
“In addition to its other defects, the Policy also exceeds the statutory authority that the INA vests in the Secretary of State,” Vargas continued.
“Specifically, Secretary Rubio’s Cable directing consular officers that they ‘must refuse’ immigrant visas to nationals of certain countries cannot be reconciled with Congress’s express limitation on his authority as Secretary of State.”
Judge Rejects Government’s Legal Defense
The Trump administration argued that the visa refusals were lawful because consular officers formally issued them under Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, a provision that allows certain visa applications to be refused.
However, Vargas rejected that argument, stating that the government failed to identify legal authority allowing officers to deny visas to applicants who had already been determined eligible.
“The Government engages in what is best described as an exercise in Orwellian logic,” Vargas wrote.
The judge concluded that the policy conflicted with provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act that restrict nationality-based discrimination in immigrant visa decisions and permit refusals only when applicants are legally ineligible.
She said the administration’s approach created “pernicious distinctions based upon nationality.”
Court Says Consular Officers’ Role Was Undermined
The administration also argued that the policy did not remove consular officers from the decision-making process because officers still entered the final visa refusals.
Vargas disagreed, explaining that simply requiring officers to process predetermined denials did not preserve the authority Congress gave them.
“The fact that the mandatory visa refusal is ultimately effectuated by the consular officer hardly means that the consular officer’s role in the statutory scheme has not been usurped,” she wrote.
Meanwhile, the ruling draws a distinction between the visa freeze and the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision that upheld President Trump’s first-term travel ban.
Vargas noted that the earlier case involved presidential authority over entry into the United States, while the current dispute focused on whether the State Department could refuse immigrant visas to applicants who were otherwise eligible under immigration law.
Ruling Sends Visa Cases Back For Review
The decision does not eliminate visa refusals based on other independent legal grounds.
Instead, it specifically affects cases where applicants were denied only because they were citizens of one of the 75 countries included in the freeze. Those cases must now return to the government for further review consistent with the court’s decision.
The lawsuit was filed by the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC); African Communities Together (ACT), a Harlem-based immigrant advocacy organization; five individuals seeking employment-based immigration opportunities; and six U.S. citizens attempting to bring family members to the country.
