Federal Judge Strikes Down Trump Immigration Policy Affecting USCIS Applicants From 39 Countries

A federal judge has struck down a Trump administration policy that blocked final decisions on immigration applications filed by people from 39 countries, finding that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services exceeded its authority and unlawfully froze parts of the immigration benefits process.

In a ruling issued Friday, U.S. District Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. found that USCIS could not withhold decisions across broad categories of asylum, work permit, green card, and citizenship applications based on an applicant’s country of origin. The administration adopted the policy after the arrest of an Afghan national accused of shooting two National Guard members last year, claiming the restrictions were needed for national security.

The order is limited to USCIS, the Department of Homeland Security agency that handles immigration applications filed by people already inside the United States. Separate asylum cases decided by immigration judges for people stopped at the border are not covered by the decision.

Covered countries included nations in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East that were subject to the administration’s travel restrictions. Immigrants with pending USCIS applications were left without final decisions on filings that could affect their ability to work, remain protected, or seek permanent status.

McConnell sharply criticized USCIS, finding that the agency claimed power it did not have and failed to give a reasoned explanation for the policy. The judge wrote that the agency’s conduct was “contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious.”

Federal agencies must follow the laws that give them power. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, USCIS must stay within the authority Congress gave it and give a reasoned explanation when changing how it handles immigration applications. An agency action can be found arbitrary and capricious when that explanation is missing or unsupported.

USCIS was also faulted for failing to account for immigrants who had already filed applications under existing rules. Federal law requires agencies to weigh those reliance interests before changing course, especially when a new policy can affect work authorization, lawful status, or citizenship requests already in progress.

The administration argued that Congress gives the executive branch broad authority over immigration and said the USCIS guidance was meant to help officers make consistent, individualized decisions. McConnell rejected the argument, finding that the policy functioned as a broad barrier rather than ordinary internal guidance.

The order does not say the federal government lacks all power to impose country-based travel or entry restrictions. McConnell’s decision centered on USCIS benefit applications and the agency’s obligation to apply the laws Congress has assigned it to carry out.

National security concerns remained a key part of the administration’s defense, but the court found that USCIS still needed legal authority and a reasoned explanation before freezing final decisions on benefit applications.

Immigrant rights organizations brought the lawsuit, claiming the freeze harmed families, workers, asylum seekers, and communities by leaving applications unresolved. The filings argued that the policy shut down lawful immigration pathways for people based on where they came from.

All pending USCIS cases involving people from the countries covered by the challenged policy are expected to be affected, not only the applications tied to the groups named in the lawsuit.