A federal judge has struck down a Trump administration ban on issuing immigrant visas to people from 75 countries, saying the policy violated federal immigration law by discriminating on the basis of nationality.
The State Department said earlier this year that it was halting immigrant visas for citizens of Afghanistan, Brazil, Yemen and dozens of other countries because the Trump administration determined people from those nations were likely to need public assistance if they came to the United States.
The policy would have barred the U.S. government from issuing immigrant visas even in cases where consular officers individually assessed applicants and determined they were likely to be self-sufficient in the U.S., according to a ruling Friday by District Judge Jeannette A. Vargas in the Southern District of New York.
"In many ways, this is not a challenging case," Vargas wrote. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 prohibits discrimination on the basis of nationality in the issuance of immigrant visas, Vargas said. However, the Trump administration's policy banned certain people from receiving immigrant visas "based solely on their nationality," the judge wrote.
Vargas cited a U.S. diplomatic cable that instructed consulates to refuse immigrant visas to applicants who had already been approved but whose printed visas hadn't left the consulate.
Vargas said the Trump administration's policy was "contrary to law" and exceeded the authority of Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The judge's ruling vacated the visa ban and also set aside visa denials that were based only on the policy.
A State Department spokesperson told NPR the Trump administration is "protecting the American people by upholding the highest standards of screening and vetting of visa applicants," adding that the administration doesn't comment on ongoing litigation. When the State Department issued the ban, it said the policy would "remain active until the U.S. can ensure that new immigrants will not extract wealth from the American people."
The ban was part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to limit legal and illegal immigration. In June, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional right to birthright citizenship, rejecting an executive order Trump signed that tried to bar citizenship for babies born in the U.S. to parents who either entered the country illegally or who are living and working here legally with temporary visas. The executive order never went into effect because lower court judges ruled it was unconstitutional.
Susan Welber, supervising attorney at The Legal Aid Society, which represented plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the federal government, says the 75-country visa ban was "premised on a fiction" that residents of the targeted nations are likely to use public resources if they come to the U.S.
"Any time that we can fight back against policies that are based on fictions and untruths and prejudices, I think we're making for a more just immigration system," Welber says.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit included the Catholic Immigration Legal Network and African Communities Together, which provide immigration legal services, as well as six U.S. citizens who filed family-based immigration petitions on behalf of relatives and five "intending immigrants" who filed employment-based petitions on their own behalf.
"The suspension of lawful visa processing across 75 countries separated spouses, parents, and children who were simply following the legal immigration process," Anna Gallagher, executive director of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, said in a statement.
Plaintiffs' lawyers said Friday's ruling will allow their clients to proceed through the immigration process.
"For 75 countries' worth of families, this decision means a return to fair, case-by-case review, and a chance to be reunited with their loved ones," said Antionette Dozier, senior attorney for Western Center on Law & Poverty, which represented the Catholic Legal Immigration Network. "No administration gets to override the law because it deems an applicant's nationality unacceptable."
