Federal Judge Strikes Down Trump's 75-Country Immigrant Visa Ban as Nationality-Based Discrimination
In a major judicial defeat for the Trump administration's immigration crackdown, U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas of the Federal District Court in Manhattan struck down the administration's sweeping ban on immigrant visa processing for citizens of 75 countries1 on Friday, August 21, 2026.
The policy, which was enacted in January 2026, suspended the processing of permanent-residence immigrant visas for nationals of 75 countries—including Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Brazil, Egypt, Nigeria, Somalia, Thailand, and Yemen—affecting nearly 40% of the countries on Earth. The ban halted visas for people seeking to join family members or take jobs in the United States, though it did not apply to temporary nonimmigrant visas such as student or tourist visas.
In her 61-page ruling, Judge Vargas declared the blanket policy "contrary to law" and ruled that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had exceeded his statutory authority. She found that, in practice, consular officers were ordered to reject visas for applicants solely based on their nationality, even when individual assessments showed those applicants could support themselves and would not become a public charge. This violated Section 1152(a)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which strictly prohibits nationality-based discrimination in the issuance of visas.2
In attempting to defend the ban, the administration's legal team relied on the 2018 Supreme Court precedent Trump v. Hawaii, which upheld a travel ban on several majority-Muslim countries under the president's broad entry-suspension powers. However, Judge Vargas rejected this defense, distinguishing a categorical entry proclamation from a State Department policy that systematically suspends visa processing in violation of statutory anti-discrimination provisions.
The ruling vacates the visa ban and sets aside all visa denials that were based solely on the policy, representing a significant check on the executive branch's efforts to unilaterally rewrite immigration rules.
-
An instance of The judiciary acts as a systematic barrier against the political weaponization of executive power. — The federal court acted as a check on executive power by striking down a unilateral visa ban that violated statutory anti-discrimination laws. ↩︎
-
An instance of Political agendas and historical customs collapse when they collide with literal statutory text. — A federal court struck down the sweeping travel ban because it directly conflicted with clear, literal statutory text prohibiting nationality discrimination in visa issuance. ↩︎