A federal lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s 75-country visa ban is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case, Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. v. Rubio, was filed on February 2, 2026, by two nonprofit organizations and eleven individual plaintiffs. As of mid-2026, both sides have filed motions for summary judgment, Judge Jeannette A. Vargas has not ruled, and the ban remains in effect.1Center for Constitutional Rights. Questions and Answers About 75-Country Visa Ban Lawsuit
What the Ban Does
On January 21, 2026, the State Department indefinitely suspended immigrant visa issuance to nationals of 75 specific countries across Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe. The justification offered was that immigrants from those countries were at “high risk” of becoming a “public charge.” The listed countries include Brazil, Colombia, Ghana, Ethiopia, Jamaica, Pakistan, Russia, and Uruguay, among others.2U.S. Department of State. Immigrant Visa Processing Updates for Nationalities at High Risk of Public Benefits Usage
Consular officers are directed to refuse immigrant visas to all nationals of the listed countries regardless of individual circumstances. Applicants can still file and attend interviews, but no visa stamp will be issued. Narrow exceptions exist for dual nationals holding a passport from an unlisted country and for certain adoptions by American parents.2U.S. Department of State. Immigrant Visa Processing Updates for Nationalities at High Risk of Public Benefits Usage
The ban was implemented through internal State Department cables and directives rather than through a presidential proclamation or Federal Register publication.1Center for Constitutional Rights. Questions and Answers About 75-Country Visa Ban Lawsuit According to Cato Institute analysis, the freeze bars roughly 324,000 legal immigrants annually — about 48 percent of all legal immigration — and affects nearly 90 percent of African immigrant visa applicants. An estimated 100,000 spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents are among those blocked each year.3Cato Institute. New Ban Hits Half Legal Immigrants, Even Citizens’ Spouses, Kids Federal law already bars most immigrant visa recipients from accessing means-tested public benefits during their first five years of residency, a point plaintiffs and outside analysts have raised against the stated public-charge rationale.4Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. State Department Unjustifiably Invokes Public Charge to Freeze Immigrant Visa Processing
How This Differs From the 39-Country Travel Ban
The 75-country freeze is a separate policy from Proclamation 10998, the presidential proclamation that took effect January 1, 2026, and fully or partially suspended entry for nationals of 39 countries. That proclamation was issued under INA Section 212(f), the same statutory authority the Supreme Court upheld in Trump v. Hawaii in 2018.5U.S. Department of State. Suspension of Visa Issuance to Foreign Nationals to Protect the Security of the United States The 75-country freeze, by contrast, was an administrative action by the Secretary of State that never took the form of an executive order or proclamation, which is one reason plaintiffs believe it is more vulnerable to challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act and the INA’s anti-discrimination provisions.6Mandamus Lawyers. 39-Country Travel Ban vs 75-Country Visa Freeze Comparison
The two policies overlap. Combined, they touch more than 90 countries, and roughly half of all legal permanent immigration from abroad is currently blocked.7PBS NewsHour. Trump Administration’s Visa Freeze Upends Work and Life for Many U.S. Families A separate federal court in Rhode Island struck down related USCIS processing holds tied to the 39-country proclamation in June 2026, in Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS. That ruling did not address the 75-country freeze.8Cyrus Mehta Blog. Dorcas v USCIS: Federal Court Reaffirms That USCIS Must Adjudicate, Not Stonewall, Immigration Benefits
Who Filed the Lawsuit
CLINIC v. Rubio names Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the Department of State as defendants. It is not a class action, though a favorable ruling would effectively lift the ban for all affected applicants from the 75 countries.9Western Center on Law & Poverty. CLINIC v. Rubio
The organizational plaintiffs are the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC), a national nonprofit that provides legal assistance to low-income noncitizens, and African Communities Together, a New York-based advocacy organization for African immigrants.10Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. v. Rubio
The eleven individual plaintiffs include visa applicants from banned countries and U.S. citizens trying to reunite with family. The complaint describes a U.S. citizen mother in New York unable to bring her four adult children and three grandchildren from Ghana despite approved visa petitions, a father on Long Island separated from his wife and nursing child in Guatemala, and a Colombian physician approved for an EB-1A employment visa who cannot receive the document.11National Immigration Law Center. Immigrant Families, Workers, Legal Assistance Groups Challenge Trump Admin’s 75-Country Visa Ban in Federal Court
Plaintiffs are represented by a coalition that includes the National Immigration Law Center, Democracy Forward Foundation, the Legal Aid Society, the Western Center on Law & Poverty, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the law firm Colombo & Hurd. Lead counsel is Joanna Elise Cuevas Ingram, a senior staff attorney at NILC.12Center for Constitutional Rights. Declaration of Joanna Elise Cuevas Ingram in Support of Summary Judgment
The Legal Claims
The complaint challenges the ban under three bodies of law.
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, plaintiffs argue the ban replaces the individualized public charge determination required by 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(4) with a blanket nationality-based refusal; discriminates against visa applicants based on nationality in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a); and overrides the independent judgment of consular officers by mandating refusals of otherwise-eligible applicants, contrary to 8 U.S.C. §§ 1104(a) and 1201(g).13National Immigration Law Center. CLINIC v. Rubio, Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, plaintiffs argue the State Department issued what functions as a binding legislative rule without notice-and-comment rulemaking. They contend the APA’s foreign-affairs exception does not apply, and they invoke the Accardi doctrine, which bars agencies from disregarding their own established procedures.13National Immigration Law Center. CLINIC v. Rubio, Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief
Under the Fifth Amendment, plaintiffs allege the ban violates equal protection by targeting “mostly nonwhite” populations and discriminating on the basis of race, ethnicity, and national origin.9Western Center on Law & Poverty. CLINIC v. Rubio
The requested relief is a declaration that the ban is unlawful, an order vacating and permanently enjoining it, and a mandate that the State Department resume individualized visa processing.9Western Center on Law & Poverty. CLINIC v. Rubio
The Threshold Fight Over Judicial Review
A major question in the case is whether federal courts can review the ban at all. The government relies on the doctrine of consular nonreviewability, the longstanding principle that individual visa decisions by consular officers are generally not subject to judicial scrutiny. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the doctrine’s force in Department of State v. Muñoz in 2024, holding that judicial review of visa denials is very limited absent a burden on a U.S. citizen’s constitutionally protected rights.14Supreme Court of the United States. Department of State v. Muñoz
Plaintiffs argue they are not asking the court to second-guess any individual consular decision. Instead, they mount a facial challenge to a Department-wide policy that removes consular discretion entirely and mandates refusals for a whole category of applicants. They rely on Pietersen v. Department of State, a 2025 D.C. Circuit decision holding that courts may review forward-looking challenges to policies governing consular decisions when the complaint targets the policy framework itself rather than a single denial.13National Immigration Law Center. CLINIC v. Rubio, Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief Whether Judge Vargas accepts that distinction will likely determine whether the case reaches the merits.
Where the Case Stands
The case is assigned to Judge Jeannette A. Vargas, a Biden appointee confirmed to the Southern District of New York in September 2024. Before joining the bench, Vargas spent over two decades as an assistant U.S. attorney in the same district, most recently as deputy chief of the Civil Division, and earlier clerked for then-Judge Sonia Sotomayor on the Second Circuit.15Federal Judicial Center. Vargas, Jeannette Anne
After the February 2, 2026 filing, the case moved quickly. Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment on March 10, 2026, seeking a declaration that the ban is unlawful, vacatur, and an order reinstating individualized visa processing. The government filed its own summary judgment motion and opposition on March 26, 2026.16Center for Constitutional Rights. CLINIC v. Rubio As of the most recent docket activity in June 2026, the cross-motions remain pending before Judge Vargas.17National Immigration Law Center. CLINIC v. Rubio The ban continues to apply while the court considers them.1Center for Constitutional Rights. Questions and Answers About 75-Country Visa Ban Lawsuit