A federal judge on Friday dismantled one of the Trump administration’s broadest immigration moves yet, striking down a State Department ban that had blocked immigrant visas for nationals of 75 countries— nearly 40% of the world.
U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas in Manhattan ruled the policy was “contrary to law” and exceeded the authority of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, delivering another major setback to the administration’s immigration crackdown.
In January, the State Department paused issuance of immigrant visas for citizens of countries including Brazil, Colombia, Egypt, Haiti, Somalia and Russia.
The rationale, officials said: prevent the entry of people who would “take welfare and public benefits.”
The list was built from Council of Economic Advisers data targeting nations where more than 30% of immigrant households received some form of public assistance.
Most of the 75 countries are non-European, spanning the Caribbean, sub-Saharan Africa, the Balkans, the Middle East, Central Asia and Southeast Asia. Several are U.S. partners, including Jordan, Egypt and Georgia.
The ban hit permanent-residence visas for family reunification and job-based immigration. It did not apply to nonimmigrant visas like tourist or student visas.
Judge Vargas found the State Department ignored U.S. immigration law.
Under the law, a consular officer can only deny someone as a likely “public charge” after weighing that person’s finances, age, health, skills and family situation.
But evidence in court showed officers were ordered to reject applicants solely because of their country of birth— even if they could support themselves.
A cable Rubio sent to every U.S. embassy and consulate, entered into the record, instructed officers to refuse applicants even when they “provide additional evidence that demonstrates he or she overcomes the public charge refusal.”
“The outcome is predetermined,” Vargas wrote. “The visa will be refused.”
She said the policy violated a 1965 law barring discrimination by nationality in granting visas, and a separate provision that strips the Secretary of State of power over how consular officers decide individual cases.
—Who Was Hurt—
The plaintiffs included six U.S. citizens who filed family petitions and said the ban blocked relatives in Ghana, Jamaica, Guatemala and Ethiopia.
Also included were five Colombians who applied for job-based visas — one received a denial letter that directly cited the policy.
The ruling reverses any visa denial based solely on the ban. Denials made on other legal grounds still stand, so the total number of people affected remains unclear.
—Administration Wins One Point, Can Appeal—
The court did side with the administration on one narrow issue: the policy did not need formal public-comment rulemaking.
In defending the ban, government lawyers leaned on the 2018 Supreme Court ruling that upheld Trump’s first-term travel ban. But Vargas drew a distinction: that case was about the president’s power to decide who may enter the country. This case was about whether a visa could be issued at all.
Vargas, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, has given both sides until September 11 to propose how to resolve the remaining parts of the case. The administration can appeal.
The Justice Department and White House have not yet commented.
Source: https://edition.cnn.com/2026/08/22/politics/judge-voids-trumps-75-country-visa-ban-hnk
