CLINIC v. Rubio

Case Status Update

In a major victory for families, fairness, and the rule of law, on August 21, 2026, a federal court in New York struck down the Trump administration’s blanket, nationality-based immigrant visa ban affecting people from 75 countries. The court held that the policy exceeded the State Department’s legal authority and violated the Immigration and Nationality Act’s prohibition on nationality-based discrimination in immigrant visa issuance. The court vacated visa refusals based solely on the unlawful policy and ordered the State Department to resume individualized adjudication of affected applications.

When Defendants failed to provide meaningful information about how they were implementing the court’s order and continued to delay visa processing, Plaintiffs sought emergency relief to enforce the order and judgment vacating the blanket visa ban. On August 31, 2026, the court granted Plaintiffs’ emergency motion in part, ordering Defendants to submit a sworn status report detailing their compliance efforts, including how affected applicants are being identified, notified, and returned to processing, and to provide information about the timeline for adjudicating remanded cases.

In their September 8 status report, Defendants acknowledged that more than 43,000 immigrant visa applications were denied solely under the unlawful policy and are subject to the court’s vacatur and remand order. Defendants further disclosed that the State Department had extended worldwide immigrant visa appointment cancellations through September to engage in “public charge” training, and there was no fixed timeline for completing reconsideration of affected cases.

Plaintiffs responded to request further enforcement of the Court’s order, arguing that Defendants have failed to demonstrate compliance with the court’s order, have not shown that applicants were removed from administrative processing or notified of the remand of their cases, and are improperly delaying relief by subjecting affected applicants to a global “pause” to implement “public-charge” guidance and training requirements. Plaintiffs have urged the court to require ongoing compliance reporting and greater transparency regarding the government’s implementation efforts.

On September 10, 2026, Defendants filed a notice of appeal challenging the district court’s judgment. The district court’s order and judgment, however, legally remains in effect, unless stayed pending appeal.

Case Overview

This lawsuit challenges the Trump administration’s sweeping suspension of immigrant visa processing for people from 75 countries, which constitutes an unlawful nationality-based ban on legal immigration and a new set of discriminatory, unlawful public charge rules that strips families and working people of the process guaranteed by law.

On February 2, 2026, the National Immigration Law Center, Democracy Forward, The Legal Aid Society-New York, the Western Center on Law & Poverty, the Center for Constitutional Rights and Colombo & Hurd filed the complaint against the U.S. Department of State (“DOS”) and Secretary of State Marco Rubio in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs include Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC), African Communities Together (ACT), along with several individuals harmed by the Ban and related DOS Cables, including working professionals from Colombia seeking employment-based visas in the U.S. and U.S. citizens who were in the process of securing a visa for their loved ones in Ghana, Ethiopia, Jamaica and Guatemala and now are indefinitely separated from their families by the ban.

The Trump administration has baselessly cited “public charge” risk as its stated justification for the ban, issuing directives via internal Department of State (“DOS”) Cables to rewrite both the laws and rules governing immigrant visa processing as well as the definition and application of “public charge,” after relentlessly and cruelly smearing immigrant communities, particularly communities of color. However, as the suit asserts, this is a false narrative. The overwhelming majority of applicants for immigrant visas are not eligible for cash welfare and remain ineligible for years. For the emergency services and public programs they may ultimately be eligible for, Congress has decided to make these benefits available, and receiving them does not determine whether someone is likely to become a public charge. Immigrants pay state, local, and federal taxes that help fund the services used by all U.S. residents, including U.S. citizens, and contribute to overall economic growth in the United States.

The lawsuit argues that the ban, which was adopted without notice-and-comment rulemaking, violates the Administrative Procedure Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act itself, the constitutional separation of powers, and the Fifth Amendment due to its discriminatory intent.