Immigrant rights groups, alongside several U.S. citizens, filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s recent prohibition on processing immigrant visas for individuals from 75 countries. They argue that this policy illegally alters U.S. immigration law and discriminates based on nationality and race, claiming it dismantles decades of established immigration law.
The lawsuit, reviewed by Fox News Digital, was submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. It names Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the U.S. State Department as defendants.
The plaintiffs seek to halt the State Department’s policy, effective from January 21, which temporarily suspends the issuance of immigrant visas to applicants from the specified countries. This ban also extends to nonimmigrant visas, like tourist visas.
The initiative, as previously reported, aims to tighten controls on applicants suspected of public offense likelihood, reflecting a re-evaluation of existing screening procedures. The lawsuit contends that the policy establishes an unfair “categorical ban on legal immigration based on national origin,” and undermines the federal law’s requirement for individual assessments.
The State Department defends the moratorium, asserting that applicants from these countries pose a heightened risk of becoming “public charges”—those reliant on government support. The complaint asserts that this stance is based on unfounded and false claims suggesting that nationals from these nations seek to immigrate solely for welfare benefits and are prone to criminal behavior.
The lawsuit indicates that this ban impacts nearly 40% to 45% of all global immigrant visa applicants and also affects those who have already been approved or are set to print a visa. Notably, the policy lacks a specified end date, review criteria, or waiver options.
The National Immigration Law Center, Democracy Forward, the Legal Aid Society, and other organizations are among the plaintiffs. They include nonprofit entities, U.S. citizens filing for family members, and employment-based visa applicants.
One U.S. citizen involved is a grandmother from New York, whose four adult children and three grandchildren from Ghana have been denied consular interviews due to the ban. Another plaintiff from Long Island is facing a similar situation, as his wife and infant are stuck in Guatemala after their visa interview was affected by the new policy.
The ban encompasses applicants from various regions, including Latin American countries like Brazil, as well as several nations in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. The plaintiffs also challenge a related directive from the State Department that broadens the definition of “public charge” to include non-cash assistance and other speculative factors such as health and English proficiency.
The group claims this expansion contradicts longstanding immigration laws and congressional intent. They are urging the court to deem these policies illegal, halt their rollout nationwide, and reinstate individualized visa processing.
In a press release, a spokesperson stated that the current administration is implementing discriminatory policies under the guise of administrative processes. They argue that by freezing immigrant visas for these countries, the administration is causing family separations and impeding essential workforce contributions.
On the contrary, Chief Deputy Press Secretary Tommy Piggott defended the policy, stating that immigrant visas are privileges contingent on adherence to the law and self-sufficiency, which protect American interests by preventing misuse of resources. They maintain that this suspension is necessary to enhance vetting procedures and ensure the public’s safety.
