A Biden-appointed federal judge in Manhattan delivered a sweeping blow to President Donald Trump’s America First immigration agenda Friday, striking down the State Department’s suspension of immigrant visas for nationals of 75 countries deemed at high risk of relying on taxpayer-funded public benefits.
U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas of the Southern District of New York ruled that the policy violated federal immigration law and exceeded the statutory authority granted to Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Vargas was nominated by former President Joe Biden in March 2024 and previously clerked for liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor when Sotomayor served on the Second Circuit.
In a scathing 61-page opinion and order, Vargas declared the Trump administration’s policy “patently unlawful” and ordered it vacated under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The State Department announced the suspension on January 14, and it took effect on January 21.
The policy instructed consular officers to refuse immigrant visas under Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act for applicants from the designated countries.
President Trump and Secretary Rubio acted to stop the flood of migrants from countries whose nationals have repeatedly shown high rates of welfare dependency.
The Trump administration argued it was a temporary pause while the State Department developed additional screening and vetting procedures to protect American taxpayers.
“President Trump has made clear that immigrants must be financially self-sufficient and not be a financial burden to Americans,” the State Department said.
According to the administrative record, countries were generally selected when government data showed that more than 30% of immigrant households from those nations received some form of public assistance. Certain countries were excluded for foreign-policy reasons.
The policy covered nationals of:
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burma, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, The Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyz Republic, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Pakistan, Republic of the Congo, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, and Yemen.
The Gateway Pundit previously reported in January that the State Department had frozen immigrant visa issuance from the 75 countries after identifying their nationals as presenting a high risk of public-benefits usage.
The pause did not apply to tourist visas, did not revoke existing valid visas, and allowed applicants to continue attending scheduled interviews. However, consular officers were directed not to issue immigrant visas to covered nationals, even after an applicant overcame a public-charge concern or was found eligible under existing law.
The lawsuit was brought by the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, African Communities Together, several immigrant-visa applicants, and American citizens attempting to sponsor relatives from the affected countries.
Vargas sided with the immigration groups and ruled that the policy violated a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act prohibiting nationality-based discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas.
“The Policy, which categorically prohibits the issuance of immigrant visas based upon the nationality of the applicant, represents a direct abrogation of this statutory scheme,” Vargas wrote.
The judge also ruled that Rubio lacked the authority to predetermine the outcome of individual visa applications because Congress placed the ultimate power to grant or refuse visas with consular officers.
According to Vargas, Rubio’s directive effectively stripped consular officers of that authority by ordering them to reach only one possible result: refusal.
The judge mocked the administration’s defense as an “exercise in Orwellian logic,” arguing that Section 221(g) cannot be used to refuse visas to applicants whom consular officers have already determined are eligible.
Vargas also rejected the government’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Trump v. Hawaii, which upheld President Trump’s first-term travel restrictions.
She distinguished that case by arguing that Trump v. Hawaii concerned the President’s authority to restrict entry into the United States, while Rubio’s policy directly controlled the issuance of immigrant visas.
However, Vargas did side with the administration on one point. She rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the policy itself violated the INA’s public-charge provision, finding that the State Department continued to require individualized public-charge assessments. Her ruling instead rested on the nationality-discrimination provision, the allegedly improper use of Section 221(g), and the limits Congress placed on the secretary of state’s authority.
Vargas described the policy’s alleged legal defects as “comprehensive, fundamental, and severe.”
The ruling vacates the 75-country policy in its entirety. It also sets aside visa refusals that were based solely on the suspension and sends those applications back to consular officers for further review.
Importantly, the ruling does not automatically grant visas to affected applicants. Consular officers may still reject applicants on public-charge, criminal, national-security, fraud, or other lawful grounds.
The Trump administration may appeal the ruling and request a stay from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The order itself does not include a stay.
Vargas ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by September 11 outlining how the remaining claims in the case should proceed.
Ad block users: Some site features may not work correctly while an ad blocker is enabled, because they break scripts and content this website depends on. If you can’t see comments below, for example, please disable your ad blocker.