A federal judge in New York has struck down the 75-country visa ban imposed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, ruling that the policy was ‘patently unlawful’ and exceeded the powers Congress granted him under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The decision, handed down on 22 August 2026 by Judge Jeannette Vargas of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, vacates all visa denials made solely on the basis of the policy and orders the State Department to resume individualised assessments of applicants.
The ruling runs to 61 pages and reaches a conclusion that leaves thousands of previously refused applications in need of re-adjudication, according to reporting by the New York Times.
The Legal Basis for Striking Down the 75-Country Visa Ban
Judge Vargas identified two independent grounds on which the policy fails. First, the INA ‘explicitly strips the Secretary of State of authority over consular adjudication of immigrant visas,’ meaning Rubio acted without statutory power when he directed consular officers to refuse visas categorically. Second, the court found the ban violates Section 1152(a)(1)(A) of the INA, which prohibits nationality-based discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas. The judge described the policy as drawing ‘pernicious distinctions based upon nationality.’
The court also took issue with what an internal State Department cable, produced as evidence in the case, revealed: consular officers were instructed to deny visas even when applicants provided ‘additional evidence that demonstrates he or she overcomes the public charge refusal.’ Judge Vargas was unsparing in her assessment. ‘The Policy, which categorically prohibits the issuance of immigrant visas based upon the nationality of the applicant, represents a direct abrogation of this statutory scheme,’ she wrote. ‘(Rubio’s order) mandates the refusal of visas to eligible applicants without any basis in law…whatever determinations (consular officers) make as to eligibility for the applicants…are ultimately irrelevant. The outcome is predetermined. The visa will be refused.’
Origins of the Policy and the Public Charge Rationale
The State Department announced the visa freeze on 14 January 2026, and it took effect on 21 January 2026, framed as a pause pending ‘a full review of all screening and vetting policies to ensure that immigrants from high-risk countries do not unlawfully utilize welfare in the United States or become a public charge.’ Consular officers were instructed to refuse immigrant visas under INA Section 221(g) for covered nationalities, even where no other ground for refusal existed.
The policy covered citizens of 75 nations, concentrated in Latin America, Africa, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and the Caribbean, representing roughly 40% of the world’s countries. The State Department’s stated justification rested on Council of Economic Advisers data indicating that more than 30% of households with immigrants from the targeted countries received some form of public assistance.
The public charge rule requires prospective immigrants to demonstrate they will not depend on government support. The INA, however, also requires consular officers to conduct individualised assessments of each applicant, weighing factors including employment history, savings, and the presence of family members already settled in the United States. Rubio’s policy, the court found, rendered that statutory process meaningless.
The lawsuit, filed on 2 February 2026 as case number 1:26-cv-00858, was brought by the National Immigration Law Center, Democracy Forward, The Legal Aid Society, the Western Center on Law and Poverty, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and Colombo and Hurd, acting on behalf of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, African Communities Together, and eleven individual plaintiffs.
A Parallel Ruling and What Comes Next
The New York decision is not the first judicial rebuke of the freeze. On 31 July 2026, in De Moura Gomes v. Rubio in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, a separate federal judge also found the State Department’s visa policy unlawful and ordered re-adjudication of that plaintiff’s application, though without vacating the policy on a broad basis. The Greenberg Traurig immigration team noted the limited reach of that earlier order by contrast with Judge Vargas’s broader vacatur.
The National Immigration Law Center called Friday’s ruling ‘a major victory for families, fairness, and the rule of law.’ The State Department has not yet indicated whether it will appeal. The Catholic Legal Immigration Network had flagged, as early as November 2025, a State Department cable expanding the public charge factors consular officers were expected to apply.
Subject to any onward appeal, the State Department must now resume case-by-case assessments for the nationalities affected. The scale of that exercise is formidable: the New York Times reports the ruling raises the prospect that thousands of previously refused applications will require individual review. Whether the government seeks an emergency stay pending appeal will determine how quickly, if at all, that process begins.
