A federal judge in New York has set aside a Trump administration policy that barred immigrant visas for nationals from 75 countries identified as high risk for becoming reliant on U.S. public welfare. Judge Jeanette Vargas, appointed under President Biden, ruled on Friday that the State Department's January 21 directive, issued by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) by discriminating on the basis of nationality.

The ruling escalates the ongoing conflict over how far the executive branch can go to restrict legal immigration based on concerns about public benefit usage, and whether courts can block such policies under existing law.

President Trump has made curbing both legal and illegal immigration a central part of his administration's agenda, pledging to end what he calls taxpayer subsidization of migrants. The State Department's policy, now vacated, was a key part of that effort. The administration has also issued executive orders targeting immigration from countries deemed national security threats, some of which overlap with the 75 countries affected by the visa ban.

Judge Vargas’s Ruling

Judge Vargas found that the INA prohibits discrimination based on nationality in the issuance of immigrant visas. She wrote, "The INA prohibits discrimination on the basis of nationality in the issuance of immigrant visas. The [Secretary’s] Policy categorically bans nationals of 75 countries from receiving immigrant visas, even when otherwise eligible, based solely on their nationality. The INA explicitly strips the Secretary of State of authority over consular adjudication of immigrant visas."

Vargas acknowledged that the law allows the executive branch to consider whether an applicant is likely to become a "public charge" under 8 U.S.C. §1182 (a)4, but said the administration's approach—targeting entire countries rather than making individual determinations—constituted unlawful discrimination. The judge used the vacatur power under the Administrative Procedure Act, which allows federal courts to set aside agency actions found to be arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

The lawsuit was brought by applicants for immigrant visas from the targeted countries, with support from organizations including Catholic Legal Immigration Network and African Communities Together. The case highlights ongoing legal disputes over who has standing to challenge immigration policies in federal court. Plaintiffs included immigrants in the U.S.—some naturalized citizens, others not—seeking to bring family members to the country.

Faith-based and other pro-immigration NGOs have played a prominent role in challenging Trump administration immigration actions. Catholic Charities, for example, was a major recipient of federal funding for resettling migrants under the previous administration, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has filed amicus briefs in related cases.

The Trump administration has argued that restricting visas for nationals from countries with high rates of public benefit usage is necessary to protect taxpayers. The White House has framed these efforts as part of a broader push to end "taxpayer subsidization of open borders," as outlined in a presidential action.

However, Judge Vargas cited the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Hawaii (2018), which upheld the president's authority to restrict entry for national security reasons, but distinguished the current case as involving discrimination based on nationality rather than security threats. The Supreme Court's more recent decision in Trump v. CASA (2025) limited the use of universal injunctions by district judges but left open the use of vacatur to block agency actions.

"The INA prohibits discrimination on the basis of nationality in the issuance of immigrant visas."

— Judge Jeanette Vargas, U.S. District Court

Supporters of the administration's policy argue that the law is ambiguous and that the executive branch must have discretion to protect national interests. Critics, including the NGOs involved in the suit, contend that blanket bans based on nationality are unlawful and undermine family reunification.

Next Steps for the Administration

The Trump administration is expected to appeal the decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and, if necessary, to the Supreme Court. Officials have not publicly responded to the ruling. The administration could also consider revising its approach by conducting more individualized reviews of visa applicants from high-risk countries, rather than imposing categorical bans.

The judge's ruling does not affect Trump's separate executive order banning immigration from certain countries for national security reasons, which remains in effect. The legal and policy battles over immigration restrictions and the scope of executive authority are likely to continue as the administration pursues its stated goals.