A federal judge in New York, Jeannette A. Vargas, has vacated the Trump administration’s suspension of immigrant visas for nationals of 75 countries, holding that Secretary of State Marco Rubio exceeded his authority by ordering consular officers to deny eligibility to applicants based solely on nationality. This ruling, issued on August 21, 2026, reverses a policy implemented on January 21, 2026.
The State Department announced on January 14, 2026, that it would pause the issuance of immigrant visas to nationals of 75 countries it deemed at high risk of becoming a public charge. Secretary Rubio’s accompanying cable to consular posts went further, directing officers to refuse visas under Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to nearly every applicant from those countries, even those an officer had already determined were eligible and posed no risk of becoming a public charge.
This pause was specifically for immigrant visa applicants, and B1/B2 tourist visa applicants will not be affected, as they are non-immigrant visas. Immigrant visas permit foreigners to reside and work in the United States after obtaining a green card.
It also meant that nationals of these 75 countries can still enter the United States on a non-immigrant visa, which is intended for non-citizens visiting the country temporarily for tourism, commerce, a temporary job, or study.
Why the court struck it down
The court identified three legal defects in the policy. The first defect involved a violation of Section 1152(a)(1)(A) of the INA, enacted in 1965 to eliminate nationality-based discrimination in immigration. The judge highlighted the law’s roots in civil rights reforms, emphasizing that it aimed to assess immigrants based on their individual merits rather than their country of origin.
Secondly, the policy violated Section 1201(g) by instructing consular officers to deny visas without a proper finding of ineligibility, thereby predetermining outcomes before individual assessments could occur.
Third, the court found that Secretary Rubio had no authority to issue the order in the first place. Section 1104(a) of the INA specifically strips the Secretary of State of control over the “granting or refusal” of visas, a power Congress vested exclusively in consular officers. The judge was pointed about this, writing that the government’s defence of the policy amounted to “an exercise in Orwellian logic.”
Notably, the court dismissed a key argument from the plaintiffs, determining that the policy did not violate the INA’s public charge provision, as it still required officers to perform individualized assessments before resorting to blanket refusals.
The court ruled in favor of the government on a procedural claim, stating that the policy did not necessitate formal notice-and-comment rulemaking as it served as an internal directive for consular staff, rather than establishing new legal obligations for the public.
Impact of the ruling
The judgment vacates the entire policy and all visa refusals based solely on it. Applicants rejected for their nationality will have their cases reconsidered by consular officers, free from the previous instructions. Refusals based on other grounds remain unchanged. The court issued a declaratory judgment identifying the violated statutes by the administration, necessary to avoid future disputes.
What happens next
The court rejected sending the policy back to the State Department for reconsideration due to fundamental legal defects. The parties are required to submit a joint letter by September 11, 2026, detailing their plans for proceeding with remaining claims, including those related to a separate November 2025 public charge rule not addressed by this ruling.
Disclaimer: This article is based on a federal court ruling and is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, immigration, or tax advice. Readers are advised to consult a qualified immigration attorney for guidance on their specific case. 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.