An Indian-origin federal judge in Washington has ruled that the Donald Trump administration’s ongoing Green Card freeze targeting applicants from 75 countries is unlawful.
In a July 31 opinion tied to the ‘De Moura Gomes v Rubio’ case, Judge Amit Mehta of the US District Court for the District of Columbia found that the public charge policy issued by Marco Rubio exceeded the US Secretary of State’s authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) in the United States.
The case in question centres on a rule overhaul, effective January 2026, that prompted the US State Department to initiate a sweeping review of all screening and vetting policies to ensure that immigrants from “high-risk” countries don’t unlawfully use welfare in the US or become a public charge. Additionally, the Trump administration stressed at the time that immigrants entering the US must be financially self-sufficient and not become a financial burden on Americans.
Nationals of the following countries were impacted in the US State Department-led pause of visa issuance, effective January 21, 2026. India was not in the list:
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.
Which case did Amit Mehta preside over?
The July 31 decision particularly concerns a lawsuit filed by Newton De Moura Gomez, a Brazilian national, against the US State Department. According to the official memorandum opinion document, the plaintiff applied for an immigrant visa through the EB-5 program, which offers noncitizens a pathway to secure permanent residency (Green Card) through capital investment and job creation.
The suit, which also includes Gomes’ wife and two daughters as plaintiffs, challenges the Trump administration’s Green Card and visa pause impacting 75 countries, including Brazil.
In his decision on July 31, Judge Amit Mehta wrote, “Under the Public Charge Policy, the Secretary of State is doing precisely what the INA prohibits: he is controlling individual visa application determinations.”
He also concluded: “As relief, the court (1) declares the Public Charge Policy and the withholding of approval of Plaintiffs’ immigrant visas based on that policy to be unlawful and (2) enjoins Defendants from applying the Public Charge Policy to Plaintiff’s application,” as seen in the official memo document.
“The court further orders Defendants to re-adjudicate Plaintiff’s application on an individualized basis under the INA and applicable regulations no later than 60 days after the application is deemed complete by a consular officer.”
Indian American Judge Amit Mehta at the focus of another case this week
In addition to being the focus of the Green Card freeze case this week, the American lawyer also made headlines on Tuesday (US time) for granting the US Justice Department’s request to dismiss cases against members of the right-wing Oath Keepers militia who participated in the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol.
Earlier this week, Mehta reluctantly tossed out convictions of Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes and others who had previously been convicted of seditious conspiracy for plotting to stop the transfer of power after Donald Trump lost the presidential election in 2020. He also presided over the two seditious conspiracy trials in 2022 and 2023.
Although he firmly disagreed with the decision made by the Trump-led Department of Justice, he concluded prosecutors had the authority to drop the cases.
Suggesting he had no choice but to give in to the administration’s request, Mehta wrote in his ruling, “This is the last of the prosecutions seeking to hold accountable those responsible for the events of Jan. 6. That book is now closed.”
“Today’s epilogue diminishes the gravity of that day, denigrates the work of the prosecutors and law enforcement officers who secured these convictions, and excuses criminal acts that caused a centuries-long pillar of our democracy – the peaceful transfer of presidential power – to buckle. The court cannot write a different ending.”
What do we know about the Indian American judge?
Born in Patan, India, Amit P Mehta was appointed to the US District Court for the District of Columbia on December 22, 2014, while Barack Obama was still the US president.
Having initially received his bachelor’s in Political Science and Economics from Georgetown University in 1993, he eventually got his Juris Doctor (JD) from the University of Virginia School of Law in 1997, according to his official profile on the US District Court website. The American Bazaar once reported that he moved to the US with his Indian parents when he was just a year old.
Growing up in Reisterstown, a suburb of Baltimore, he started his legal career at the law firm of Latham and Watkins LLP after law school. Thereafter, he clerked for the Honorable Susan P. Graber of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In 2002, Judge Mehta joined the District of Columbia Public Defender Service as a staff attorney following a stint at the Washington, D.C.-based law firm Zuckerman Spaeder LLP from 1999 to 2002.
Years later, he returned to Zuckerman Spaeder to focus on white-collar criminal defense, complex business disputes, and appellate advocacy.
Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, immigration, or tax advice. Immigration laws and government policies are subject to frequent change without notice. While we strive to provide accurate updates, readers are strongly advised to verify the latest requirements with the official embassy, consulate, or government portal of the respective country. Financial Express is not responsible for any decisions made based on this information. For personalised guidance, please consult a qualified immigration attorney or a certified professional advisor.