A federal judge on Friday vacated the Trump administration’s policy of suspending the issuance of visas to immigrants from 75 countries, saying it goes against the Immigration and Nationality Act.
U.S. Judge Jeannette Vargas of the Southern District of New York said in her ruling that the policy “runs afoul of the INA’s anti-discrimination provision.”
“The Policy categorically bans nationals of 75 countries from receiving immigrant visas, even when otherwise eligible, based solely on their nationality,” Vargas wrote. “The INA explicitly strips the Secretary of State of authority over consular adjudication of immigrant visas.”
Download the Straight Arrow app today to get the stories that matter free from manipulation, bias or agenda.™
Point phone camera here
At the center of this issue, Vargas wrote, is that Congress delegated the power of determining whether someone is eligible for a visa to consular officers.
By enacting the policy, Secretary of State Marco Rubio “nonetheless overrides consular discretion and decision-making and dictates whether immigrant visas shall be granted or denied.”
“Consular officers are required to conduct an individualized assessment of applicants and to refuse visas only to those whom the consular officer finds ineligible,” Vargas said in her ruling. “The Policy nonetheless directs consular officers to refuse eligible applicants.”
The White House announced in January that it would stop giving visas to nationals in dozens of countries, including Afghanistan, Brazil, Iran, Russia and Somalia. Following this, two organizations, Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., or CLINIC, and African Communities Together sued, as well as applicants for visas from the 75 countries and U.S. citizens who sponsored family members for visas.
Advocates applaud ruling
“We welcome this ruling because, at its heart, this case is about keeping families together,” Anna Gallagher, executive director of CLINIC, said in a statement. “The suspension of lawful visa processing across 75 countries separated spouses, parents, and children who were simply following the legal immigration process. Catholic social teaching calls us to uphold the dignity of every person and recognize the family as the foundation of society. Today’s decision affirms both those values and the rule of law, allowing families to once again move forward toward reunification.”
Diana Konate, deputy executive director at African Communities Together, called the judge’s decision “a tremendous victory for the rule of law.”
“This unlawful and racist ban caused immeasurable harm, cruelly keeping families and loved ones apart,” Konate said. “Today, we are elated to tell our community members: this ban is no more.”
Straight Arrow reached out to the White House for comment. A State Department spokesperson said in an email that the agency does not comment on pending or ongoing litigation, but maintained that it is “upholding the highest standards of screening and vetting of visa applicants.”
At the time the suspension was implemented, the Trump administration said it was meant to filter out applicants likely to rely on government benefits. The order stemmed from a November directive that told U.S. embassies and consulates to vet and screen visa applicants to ensure they won’t need public benefits, according to a copy of a cable obtained by The Associated Press.
Julia Gelatt, the associate director of the U.S. immigration policy program at the Migration Policy Institute, wrote in January that the administration’s efforts could block eligible immigrants from accessing benefits.
“The likely result will be that many immigrant families will be afraid to access any public benefits for which a household member is eligible,” Gelatt wrote. “But given the complexities of benefits eligibility and immigration laws, hundreds of thousands of people in immigrant families — if not more — may nonetheless feel deterred from accessing needed supports.”
She noted that immigrants who can use public benefits do so at lower rates than U.S.-born citizens. This change would have a significant impact on children, Gelatt added.
“As the proposed rule itself recognizes, this could lead to ‘worse health outcomes’ for immigrants and communities, as well as ‘increased poverty, housing instability, reduced productivity, and lower educational attainment,’” Gelatt wrote. “In doing so, the futures of millions of U.S.-citizen children may be hampered.”
Round out your reading
- Former Fetterman staffers create social media account to expose former boss.
- Why Gen Z finally wants Boomer hand-me-downs.
- Want a copy of Pete Hegseth’s driver’s license? It’s for sale on the dark web.
- Smart glasses helped a man see the world. The privacy panic took it away.
- Americans are keeping cars longer, so the auto industry is making it easier to pay for repairs.
