A federal court vacated the State Department policy that categorically suspended immigrant visas to nationals of 75 countries, holding it violated the INA's anti-discrimination provision and exceeded the Secretary of State's authority.
On January 14, 2026, the State Department announced it would suspend immigrant visa issuance to nationals of 75 countries, claiming those populations posed a high risk of becoming public charges. The policy took effect January 21, 2026 and directed consular officers to refuse all immigrant visas to nationals of those countries — regardless of whether the officer had already determined the applicant was eligible.
On August 21, 2026, a federal judge in the Southern District of New York ruled the policy unlawful and vacated it nationwide. The court found it violated three separate provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act: the anti-discrimination provision that bars nationality-based restrictions on visa issuance, the statute that limits consular refusals to applicants found ineligible under the law, and the provision that strips the Secretary of State of authority over consular visa grant-or-refusal decisions.
The court also set aside every immigrant visa refusal that was based solely on the policy, and ordered those applications remanded to consular officers for lawful adjudication. The government won on one count: the court agreed the policy was not a legislative rule requiring notice-and-comment rulemaking.
This is a partial judgment under Rule 54(b). Remaining claims in the case continue; the parties must submit a joint letter to the court by September 11, 2026. The opinion contains no stay, but an appeal and stay request are procedurally available to the government.
Earlier this year, the State Department told every U.S. embassy and consulate worldwide to stop issuing immigrant visas to people from 75 countries — nearly 40% of the world's nations. It did not matter whether the applicant had an approved petition, had passed the interview, and had been found eligible. If they held the wrong nationality, the visa was refused.
A coalition of organizations and individuals sued. CLINIC (a national network of immigration legal services) and African Communities Together brought the case alongside U.S. citizens who were sponsoring family members and visa applicants who had been refused.
The court ruled the policy was unlawful on every theory that reached a decision. Congress wrote into the INA in 1965 that no person shall be discriminated against in visa issuance because of nationality — and the policy did exactly that. The statute says consular officers can only refuse visas to people who are ineligible under the law — and the policy ordered refusals of eligible applicants. Congress specifically took away the Secretary of State's power to tell consular officers how to decide visa cases — and the policy told them exactly how to decide.
The court threw out the entire policy nationwide and ordered every visa refusal based solely on it to be reopened. Consular officers must now decide those applications on their individual merits, the way the INA requires.
One claim failed: the court said the policy was not the kind of rule that needed formal public-comment rulemaking before it could take effect. Some claims remain unresolved and will continue.
This is general information, not legal advice, and it describes active litigation that can move quickly. Immigration outcomes depend on individual facts — confirm your specific situation with a licensed immigration attorney.