A federal judge in the United States has struck down a series of immigration policies introduced under President Donald Trump’s administration, ruling that they unlawfully prevented people from 39 countries from receiving decisions on applications related to asylum, work permits, green cards, and citizenship.
The decision was issued by Chief US District Judge John McConnell in Rhode Island. The court found that the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) lacked the legal authority to suspend or delay immigration benefit applications solely based on an applicant’s country of origin. According to the ruling, thousands of immigrants were left waiting indefinitely despite following all legal procedures required under US immigration law.
Judge McConnell stated that many applicants had complied with every requirement established by Congress and immigration authorities, yet their cases remained unresolved for months. He emphasized that these individuals were placed in legal uncertainty not because of any wrongdoing, but simply because of where they were born.
The lawsuit was filed in March by a coalition of immigrant advocacy organizations and labor unions, which argued that the policies unfairly targeted individuals from countries across Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. The plaintiffs claimed that the administration’s actions effectively shut down lawful immigration pathways for thousands of eligible applicants.
The disputed policies were introduced following a shooting incident involving two National Guard members in Washington, DC. Prosecutors alleged that the suspect was an Afghan immigrant. In response, Trump announced plans to significantly restrict migration from several nations and expanded travel restrictions to cover 39 countries.
Among the nations affected by the travel bans were Afghanistan, Iran, Haiti, Somalia, Venezuela, and Syria. The administration argued that the measures were necessary for national security and enhanced vetting procedures. However, the court concluded that USCIS failed to follow the legal framework governing immigration decisions.
The ruling represents a significant legal setback for the administration’s immigration agenda and reinforces the principle that government agencies must apply immigration laws fairly and consistently, regardless of an individual’s nationality.
