A US federal judge has struck down a set of Trump administration policies that froze immigration benefits for nationals of 39 countries covered by Washington’s expanded travel restrictions.
In a 135-page
ruling, Chief Judge John McConnell of the US District Court in Rhode Island held that the measures were unlawful and said the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) did not have the authority to impose such wide-ranging restrictions. The policies had affected Green Card applications, work permits, asylum processing and naturalisation requests.
Court says USCIS exceeded its authority
The restrictions were introduced after a 2025 shooting involving two National Guard members in Washington, DC. The Trump administration defended the measures as necessary for national security. However, McConnell said the applicants had complied with all legal requirements under US immigration law.
“Indeed, the agency has violated the very immigration laws that Congress has charged it with administering, as well as the administrative laws that govern the agency’s actions,” the judge said.
He noted that applicants had completed all required procedures, including filing paperwork, paying fees, providing biometrics and attending interviews.
The judge also criticised USCIS for relying on what he described as unsupported national security concerns. “USCIS acts without regard for the reliance interests of applicants that it must consider; and justifies its actions with pretextual concerns of ‘national security’ that mask anti-immigrant sentiments that it is forbidden from letting influence its decision-making,” he said.
The ruling struck down four USCIS policies that had either delayed or halted immigration benefits for thousands of people.
These included an indefinite freeze on Green Cards, work permits and citizenship applications for nationals from the 39 countries on the travel-ban list.
The court also invalidated a broad pause on asylum decisions, mandatory re-review of previously approved immigration benefits, and guidance directing officials to treat nationality-based factors as negative considerations during immigration decisions. McConnell ruled that applicants had been left in prolonged uncertainty solely because of their country of birth.
Trump administration defends restrictions
The Trump administration argued that the measures were necessary while reviewing vetting procedures for nationals from countries considered high-risk.
Responding to the judgment, Department of Homeland Security General Counsel James Percival defended the policies and rejected allegations that they were driven by anti-immigrant bias. “The Left has been running the same gambit with so called ‘animus’ claims since 2017,” he said. “It is sabotage dressed in legal clothing.”
What this means for Indians?
India was not among the 39 countries covered by the travel restrictions. As a result, Indian applicants were not directly affected by the immigration freeze.
However, immigration experts said the decision could have wider implications for the future handling of immigration applications and processing delays.
Indians form one of the largest groups seeking employment-based visas, Green Cards and citizenship in the United States. According to experts, the ruling reinforces judicial scrutiny of administrative delays and sends a message that immigration agencies cannot suspend lawful applications without clear statutory authority.
Immigration groups welcome decision
Immigration advocacy groups welcomed the ruling and said it restores access to legal immigration pathways.
Murad Awawdeh, president and chief executive officer of the New York Immigration Coalition, said applicants should be given a fair opportunity to have their cases considered under the law.
The lawsuit was filed by immigrant service organisations and labour unions, which argued that the policies unlawfully blocked thousands of people from receiving immigration benefits despite meeting all legal requirements.
The ruling represents a significant setback for the Trump administration’s efforts to tighten legal immigration pathways and could affect thousands of applications that had previously been put on hold.
