A coalition of civil rights and immigrant advocacy organizations has filed a high-profile lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s controversial decision to pause immigrant visa processing for nationals of 75 countries. The legal action, filed on February 2 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeks to block what plaintiffs describe as an unlawful and discriminatory policy that separates families and undermines lawful immigration channels.
The lawsuit targets the U.S. State Department and Secretary of State, alleging that the policy which went into effect on January 21, 2026—rests on an unsupported justification that immigrants from designated countries are likely to become a “public charge” or dependent on government assistance. Plaintiffs argue this rationale lacks evidentiary support and violates federal immigration law.
Scope of the Immigrant Visa Suspension
Under the disputed policy, the Department of State has paused all immigrant visa issuances for applicants who are citizens of 75 named countries across Latin America, Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and the Caribbean. Although visa applications and interviews may continue, the final step issuing the visa in an applicant’s passport is halted.
This policy affects both family-based visas (used by U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents to bring relatives to the United States) and employment-based visas (used by foreign workers with approved petitions). The pause does not apply to nonimmigrant visas such as tourist (B-1/B-2), student (F-1), or temporary work visas like H-1B and L-1.
Public Charge Rationale Sparks Legal Challenge
The administration’s stated basis for the pause centers on public charge concerns. Officials assert that immigrants from the affected countries are statistically more likely to rely on U.S. government welfare programs, potentially placing an economic burden on American taxpayers. However, legal advocates argue that this public charge reasoning is being misused to justify a sweeping policy that goes beyond
individualized assessments required under U.S. immigration law.
According to the lawsuit, this approach effectively denies immigrant visas based solely on nationality, raising constitutional and statutory questions about equal protection and
discrimination under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Critics say that blanket suspensions based on country of origin amount to nationality-based discrimination prohibited by federal law.
Plaintiffs and Legal Grounds
Among the named plaintiffs are U.S. citizens separated from their immediate family members abroad, immigrant workers with approved employment petitions left in limbo, and immigrant families seeking reunification. One highlighted case involves a Colombian doctor with an approved employment visa who cannot complete consular processing due to his nationality being on the restricted list.
Lead counsel for the plaintiffs emphasize that the lawsuit challenges not just the policy’s negative impacts, but its legal foundations. Claim filings assert violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and contend that the U.S. government exceeded its statutory authority by imposing a widespread halt without proper justification or transparent rulemaking.
Government Defense and Policy Background
In defense of the action, a State Department spokesperson reiterated that the pause is temporary and targeted. According to officials, the moratorium allows the U.S. government to
enhance screening and vetting procedures at embassies and consulates to prevent fraud, ensure national security, and uphold public charge standards more effectively.
The State Department clarified that existing valid immigrant visas will not be revoked, and that
eligible applicants can still attend interviews and submit supporting documentation. What is stopped is only the final issuance of new immigrant visas for nationals of covered countries.
While the administration’s immigration policy continues to focus on tighter enforcement and scrutiny, the visa pause has already affected thousands of individuals with pending cases, causing uncertainty for families, workers, and employers alike.
Critics Claim Discrimination and Family Harm
Civil rights advocates have labeled the policy as discriminatory and harmful, disproportionately impacting immigrants from majority-nonwhite countries. Protesters and legal experts contend that labeling entire national groups as likely public charges perpetuates harmful stereotypes and undermines established legal protections for family unity and due process.
“The administration’s narrative that applicants from these countries are likely to become public charges is false and unsupported,” said one plaintiff attorney, adding that the policy tears families apart and disrupts lawful immigration systems.
Affected families have organized publicly in several U.S. cities, holding rallies and sharing personal stories of separation, including spouses and children forced to remain overseas due to the processing halt.
Wider Impact on Immigration System
Legal experts warn that the case could have far-reaching implications for
U.S. immigration law and executive authority over visa issuance. A federal judge’s ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could set a precedent restricting broad administrative pauses and reaffirming the necessity of individualized reviews in immigration adjudications.
Immigration advocates also point out the timing of the policy, noting it arrives as the United States prepares to host major international events such as the 2026 FIFA World Cup and the 2028 Summer Olympics, events that will bring increased global travel and international arrivals.
What Comes Next
As the federal lawsuit proceeds, courts will consider preliminary injunction motions that could temporarily block the visa pause while the case unfolds. Observers expect significant legal arguments over administrative authority, statutory limits, and constitutional protections. Immigration attorneys on both sides of the case say the outcome could shape
future U.S. visa policy and executive powers over immigrant admissions.
Regardless of how the litigation turns out, the pause on immigrant visa processing has already sparked one of the most significant legal confrontations over U.S. immigration policy in recent years, underscoring ongoing debates about border control, public charge rules, and the rights of immigrant families.
Stay ahead in immigration law and federal litigation.
Explore thousands of updated legal job opportunities, expert career resources, and hiring insights at LawCrossing. Advance your legal career with positions you won’t find anywhere else.
