US District Judge Jeannette Vargas of the Southern District of New York vacated the Trump administration's policy suspending immigrant visa processing for citizens of 75 countries, ruling it "patently unlawful" and "contrary to law" [1][3][6]. The August 22, 2026 ruling found that the policy exceeded Secretary of State Marco Rubio's statutory authority and undermined the exclusive authority of consular officers to make individualized visa decisions [9][16]. The State Department declined to comment on pending litigation, and the government can appeal [9][3].
Judge Vargas ruled that the policy, which categorically prohibited the issuance of immigrant visas based on the nationality of the applicant, "represents a direct abrogation of this statutory scheme" established by the Immigration and Nationality Act [1][4]. The court found that Secretary Rubio issued instructions mandating automatic visa refusals based on nationality alone, even when consular officers determined applicants were unlikely to become a public charge [13][11]. The ruling vacated any visa denial based solely on the policy and ordered the State Department to restore individualized visa evaluations [8][13]. "The Policy is thus patently unlawful and must be vacated under the Administrative Procedure Act," the court held [16].
The State Department defended the suspension as a legitimate exercise of authority to screen out applicants at "a high risk for becoming a public charge and recourse to local, state and federal government resources in the United States" [1][4]. The department stated the policy was designed "to ensure that immigrants from high-risk countries do not unlawfully utilize welfare in the United States or become a public charge" [3][6]. State Department Principal Deputy Spokesperson Tommy Pigott said the department "will use its long-standing authority to deem ineligible potential immigrants who would become a public charge on the United States and exploit the generosity of the American people" [21]. The Department of Justice defended the suspension by relying on precedents from 2018 travel restriction cases [8].
Plaintiff organizations celebrated the ruling as restoring family reunification. Joanna Cuevas Ingram, lead attorney at the National Immigration Law Center, called the decision "a significant victory for the hundreds of thousands of families across the world whose lives were thrown into chaos by this administration's unlawful and discriminatory visa ban" [5][17]. Anna Gallagher, Executive Director of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC), said "We welcome this ruling because, at its heart, this case is about keeping families together" [9]. Diana Konate, Deputy Executive Director for Policy and Advocacy at African Communities Together, called the ruling "a tremendous victory for the rule of law" and said the "unlawful and racist ban caused immeasurable harm by keeping families apart" [9].
The suspension imposed direct personal costs on separated families. Zahid Mustafa, a US citizen whose wife and five US citizen children are in Pakistan, described the uncertainty: "`اب پتا نہیں میرے امریکی نیشنل بچوں اور ان کی والدہ کا کیا مستقبل ہو گا`" ("Now I don't know what the future of my American national children and their mother will be") [25]. Wahid Ali, an affected visa applicant from Lahore, said "`ہم انتہائی ذہنی کرب سے گزر رہے ہیں`" ("We are going through extreme mental anguish"), describing his son in the US needing surgery while his wife's visa process remained stalled [25].
African-focused reporting framed the suspension as a blow to students, professionals, and diplomatic relations across the continent, given the disproportionate number of African countries on the list [26][27]. Le Point reported anger and shock across Africa, quoting that "`Obtenir un visa pour les États-Unis, c'est devenu mission impossible`" ("Obtaining a visa for the United States has become an impossible mission") [27]. Modern Ghana reported the ruling as restoring hope for thousands of African families [26].
Rights groups argued the policy violated free speech and due process rights and created an unsafe environment, particularly for ethnic minorities concerned about racial profiling [1][4]. Human rights organizations stated "`هذه الحملة انتهكت حرية التعبير وحقوق الإجراءات القانونية السليمة، وخلقت بيئة غير آمنة، لا سيما للأقليات العرقية`" ("This campaign violated freedom of expression and due process rights, and created an unsafe environment, especially for ethnic minorities") [2]. Baher Azmy, Legal Director at the Center for Constitutional Rights, characterized the policy as part of a broader pattern of ideological discrimination [26].
Persian-language and specialist outlets noted that despite the court victory, nationals of countries including Iran and Afghanistan remain effectively barred from entry under a separate Trump proclamation (No. 10998) suspending visas for 39 countries [23][24]. Euronews Persian reported the ruling for Iranian nationals while highlighting the separate travel ban still affecting them [22]. VisaVerge clarified that the ruling's nationwide scope is distinct from a separate USCIS hold on 39 nations and does not guarantee visa approval [21].
The ruling is the latest in a series of judicial reversals of Trump's immigration policies. A June ruling struck down a separate policy affecting asylum, work permits, and citizenship applications [9]. Another court struck down a $100,000 fee for tech work visas, and the Supreme Court overturned an executive order ending birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants [13].
Parties are required to submit proposals on pending cases by September 11 [8]. The government can appeal the ruling [3][6]. The ruling does not automatically reverse visas denied on other legal grounds [11].