Federal Judge Strikes Down 75-Country Visa Freeze, Slams Policy as 'Orwellian'

A federal judge in Manhattan struck down the Trump administration's freeze on immigrant visas from 75 countries, ruling that Secretary of State Marco Rubio lacked the legal authority to order blanket denials for applicants who were otherwise found eligible to enter the United States.

U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas, a Biden appointee, vacated the State Department policy and any visa refusals based solely on it, directing the government to revisit those cases. The 61-page opinion hands opponents of the policy a courtroom win, but the legal fight over how aggressively Washington can guard against public-benefit dependence is only getting started.

The Ruling Against the Visa Freeze

Judge Vargas ruled that the policy was contrary to law and issued in excess of Secretary Rubio's statutory authority. She found that the directive effectively imposed a nationality-based ban on immigrants from nearly 40% of the world's countries, sidelining the consular officers Congress charged with deciding whether individual applicants qualify for visas.

Rubio's policy told consular officers to review each applicant individually. But even applicants who passed that review, demonstrated additional evidence overcoming the public charge refusal, and had no other reason to be denied were still refused visas if they came from one of the 75 designated countries.

"While the Policy permits consular officers to exercise their normal functions up to a point, whatever determinations they make as to eligibility for the applicants subject to the Policy are ultimately irrelevant," Vargas wrote. "The outcome is predetermined. The visa will be refused."

What the 75-Country Policy Did

The State Department enacted the policy in January, suspending immigrant-visa issuance to nationals of 75 countries the department deemed at high risk of becoming dependent on public benefits. The list spans Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East.

The administration argued the refusals were lawful because officers formally issued them under Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, an existing provision governing visa refusals. Vargas rejected that rationale, saying the government failed to identify a law allowing an officer to deny a visa to an applicant already found eligible.

"The Government engages in what is best described as an exercise in Orwellian logic," the judge wrote. She found the policy violated the INA's bar on nationality-based discrimination in immigrant-visa issuance, as well as provisions allowing visa refusals only when an applicant is legally ineligible, drawing "pernicious distinctions based upon nationality."

Legal Battle Likely to Continue

Judge Vargas distinguished the policy from the Supreme Court's 2018 ruling upholding the first-term travel ban. That case involved presidential authority over who may enter the country, while this case centered on whether the State Department could refuse immigrant visas to applicants otherwise eligible under the law.

The ruling does not invalidate visa denials based on other independent grounds of ineligibility, but it wipes out refusals based solely on the 75-country freeze and returns those cases to the government for further proceedings consistent with the decision.

The lawsuit was brought by the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, African Communities Together, five prospective employment-based immigrants, and six U.S. citizens seeking to bring family members to the country. The Trump administration has been aggressive on visa enforcement overall, having revoked roughly 100,000 visas in 2025, and the fight over this policy is widely expected to move to the appellate courts.

What Happens Next

With the policy vacated at the district level, the next move belongs to the administration. An appeal to the Second Circuit would keep the case alive while the government weighs whether to restore the freeze through new authority or a revised directive that better tracks the statute.

For now, consular officers retain their normal discretion to deny individual applicants who are genuinely ineligible, and applicants from the 75 countries will see their pending cases revisited. Supporters of the policy argue the underlying goal -- keeping the U.S. visa system from becoming a gateway to public-benefit dependence -- remains sound policy that deserves a fair hearing in higher courts. Watch for the administration's next filing, and whether a higher court restores the freeze while the appeal plays out.