75-Country Visa Ban Ruled 'Patently Unlawful': INA Precedent

For immigration and administrative law practitioners, the August 22 decision is a consequential statutory interpretation ruling. Judge Jeannette Vargas held that the Immigration and Nationality Act's prohibition on nationality discrimination is categorical, leaving no room for a blanket visa-issuance pause even when framed as a public-charge or welfare-screening measure. The ruling also delineates the limits of the Secretary of State's delegated visa authority and forces reconsideration of every denial that rested solely on the 75-country directive.

On August 22, 2026, U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York struck down a State Department policy that had indefinitely suspended immigrant visa processing for applicants from 75 countries. The court held that the policy, issued in January 2026, was patently unlawful and contrary to law, exceeded the authority of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and directly violated the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. The ruling is another major judicial check on the Trump administration's immigration agenda and provides immediate relief for affected visa applicants by requiring the State Department to review denials based solely on the ban on an individual basis.

“

The court held that the policy, issued in January 2026, was patently unlawful and contrary to law, exceeded the authority of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and directly violated the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

The January policy covered nearly 40 percent of the world's countries, including Brazil, Colombia, Somalia, Russia, Uruguay, Bosnia, Albania, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and numerous nations across Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, and the Caribbean. The State Department justified the suspension by claiming that nationals of those countries were at high risk of becoming public charges and relying on local, state, and federal government resources. Plaintiffs Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., African Communities Together, and individual applicants, who sued in February 2026, argued the nationality-based ban was based on an unsupported and demonstrably false claim that covered nationals migrate to the United States to improperly rely on cash welfare.

Judge Vargas grounded her decision in the INA's specific prohibition on nationality-based discrimination. The statute provides that no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence. The court wrote that the policy categorically prohibits the issuance of immigrant visas based upon the nationality of the applicant and represents a direct abrogation of this statutory scheme. Vargas also emphasized that all immigrant visa applications must ultimately be adjudicated by a consular officer under the INA, rather than by a blanket administrative ban. In many ways, she wrote, this is not a challenging case. The ruling overturned any visa denials based solely on the January ban and mandated case-by-case review.