A federal judge in New York has struck down one of the Trump administration’s most sweeping recent immigration measures – a policy that suspended the issuance of immigrant visas to nationals of 75 countries. US District Judge Jeannette Vargas of the Southern District of New York ruled that the policy was contrary to law and exceeded the statutory authority of Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The measure took effect on January 21, 2026 and affected nationals of countries across Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, the Caribbean and parts of Europe. They included Afghanistan, Iran, Russia, Somalia, Nigeria, Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, Egypt, Iraq and Pakistan, among many others. The administration justified the suspension as part of an effort to prevent immigrants considered more likely to depend on public assistance from becoming a financial burden on the United States. The State Department launched a review of its rules and suspended immigrant visa issuance for the affected nationalities while examining what it described as the risk of immigrants becoming a “public charge”.
The court concluded, however, that the Secretary of State could not transform the public-charge assessment into a blanket nationality-based prohibition. US immigration law already provides a mechanism for consular officers to evaluate individual applicants, including their financial circumstances, family situation and likelihood of becoming dependent on public assistance. Judge Vargas concluded that the administration had effectively replaced that individual assessment with a broad restriction applying to entire nationalities. The ruling also sets aside visa refusals based solely on the challenged policy, meaning affected cases can be reconsidered under the ordinary immigration laws. The lawsuit was brought by immigration organisations and people directly affected by the suspension, including US citizens seeking visas for relatives. The ruling could therefore be particularly significant for families separated by the policy, including spouses, parents and children whose immigration cases had already progressed through substantial parts of the US visa process.
There is an important limitation to what the ruling means. It does not abolish every US visa restriction affecting these 75 countries, nor does it automatically grant a visa to anyone whose case was previously suspended. The judgment concerns the January policy that halted immigrant visa issuance on public-benefits grounds. Every applicant remains subject to individual eligibility, security and other statutory checks and can still be refused for other lawful reasons. Separate US entry and visa restrictions also remain in force, including measures imposed on national-security grounds. Some nationals may therefore remain subject to other restrictions even after the 75-country immigrant visa policy has been overturned.
The judgment could affect thousands of families, but the legal battle may not be over. The administration can appeal the decision, potentially sending the dispute to a higher federal court. The State Department had not immediately announced its response when the ruling became public. The case also illustrates a much broader legal struggle surrounding immigration policy during Trump’s second administration: how far the president and executive branch can reshape immigration through administrative action before those measures conflict with statutes enacted by Congress. In this case, the court’s answer was clear – the Secretary of State has substantial authority over visa policy, but that authority does not allow the government to replace legally required individual assessments with a blanket prohibition covering nationals of 75 countries.
