Supreme Court backs Trump immigration reform agenda
The Supreme Court delivers two significant immigration victories for President Donald Trump, allowing the administration to terminate temporary protected status for over a million migrants and restrict asylum claims at the US-Mexico border. Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion states “The text is clear,” while Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent warns of increased violence.
NEWYou can now listen to articles!
A federal judge struck down the Trump administration’s freeze on immigrant visas from 75 countries Friday, ruling Secretary of State Marco Rubio lacked the legal authority to order denials for applicants otherwise found eligible to enter the United States.
U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas, a Biden appointee in Manhattan, vacated the State Department policy and any visa refusals based solely on it, directing the government to revisit those cases.
“The Court holds that the Policy is contrary to law and was issued in excess of Secretary Rubio’s statutory authority, Vargas wrote in her 61-page opinion.
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.
BOASBERG DELIVERS FRESH IMMIGRATION SETBACK TO TRUMP IN FREE-SPEECH CLASH
FILE – US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s policy told consular officers to review each applicant individually. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Rubio’s policy told consular officers to review each applicant individually. But even applicants who passed that review, showed “additional evidence that demonstrates he or she overcomes 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.”
The judge said the directive effectively imposed a nationality-based ban on immigrants from nearly 40% of the world’s countries and sidelined the consular officers Congress charged with deciding whether individual applicants qualify for visas.
FEDERAL JUDGE STRIKES DOWN TRUMP’S $100K H-1B VISA FEE, RULING IT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAX
“The Policy thus displaces consular officers from the role Congress assigned them in the visa issuance process,” Vargas wrote.
“In addition to its other defects, the Policy also exceeds the statutory authority that the INA vests in the Secretary of State,” Vargas continued. “Specifically, Secretary Rubio’s Cable directing consular officers that they ‘must refuse’ immigrant visas to nationals of certain countries cannot be reconciled with Congress’s express limitation on his authority as Secretary of State.”
The Trump administration has been aggressive about revoking visas of foreign nationals, having revoked 100,000 visas in 2025 ((Photo by Harry Hamburg/NY Daily News Archive via Getty Images) (Photo by Aaron Schwartz / AFP via Getty Images))
The Trump 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 had 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,” Vargas 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. The administration’s approach, she wrote, drew “pernicious distinctions based upon nationality.”
Vargas also rejected the administration’s argument that the policy preserved consular officers’ authority because they still entered the denials themselves.
“The fact that the mandatory visa refusal is ultimately effectuated by the consular officer hardly means that the consular officer’s role in the statutory scheme has not been usurped,” she wrote.
TRUMP ADMIN SUED OVER VISA TIME RESTRICTIONS FOR FOREIGN STUDENTS, JOURNALISTS
Marco Rubio with passports in view; the State Department has introduced updated vetting procedures for visa applicants. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images / istock) (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images / istock)
The judge distinguished the policy from the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling upholding Trump’s first-term travel ban. That case involved presidential authority over who may enter the country, Vargas noted, 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, Inc. (CLINIC); African Communities Together (ACT), a Harlem-based immigrant advocacy group; five prospective employment-based immigrants; and six U.S. citizens seeking to bring family members to the country.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE APP
Digital reached out to the State Department for comment.
