A federal judge in New York has vacated one of the most expansive immigration restrictions in recent history, affecting nearly 40% of all nations on Earth.
U.S. District Judge Jeannette A. Vargas of the Southern District of New York issued the ruling on August 21, 2026, in the case Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. v. Rubio, No. 26-CV-00858.
The State Department policy had categorically suspended immigrant visas for nationals of 75 countries, drawing immediate legal challenges from a broad coalition of advocacy organisations and law firms.
Judge Vargas held that the ban violated Section 1152(a)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which prohibits nationality-based discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas.
The court found the policy exceeded Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s statutory authority by replacing Congress’s individualised visa system with a blanket nationality-based refusal rule.
The ruling also found that consular officers were being forced to refuse applicants they had already independently determined were eligible for visas under existing law.
The case was brought by Colombo & Hurd, whose federal litigation team was led by Sarah Wilson, a former Department of Justice litigator, alongside a coalition of co-counsel.
Partner organisations in the litigation included the National Immigration Law Center, Democracy Forward, The Legal Aid Society, the Western Center on Law & Poverty, and the Center for Constitutional Rights.
Plaintiffs included the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., African Communities Together, and individual visa applicants whose cases had been frozen solely because of their nationality.
Among the individual plaintiffs is Dr. Fernando Lizcano Losada, a Colombian endocrinologist who was preparing to continue cancer research, including breast cancer research, at Harvard Medical School, before being refused a visa.
“The government never said there was anything wrong with his case,” said Carlos Colombo, Co-Founder of Colombo & Hurd. “It said there was something wrong with his passport.”
Sarah Wilson, Partner and Federal Litigation Practice Leader at Colombo & Hurd, said the decision provides meaningful relief to those whose visa refusals rested solely on the now-vacated policy.
“Behind this case are families, loved ones, and communities who were harmed by a policy that blocked immigrant visas on a categorical basis,” Wilson said.
“This decision affirms that this kind of sweeping suspension is not permitted by law, and it offers meaningful relief to those whose visa refusals rested solely on that policy,” she added.
Antionette Dozier, Senior Attorney for the Western Center on Law & Poverty, described the ruling as a significant rebuke of discriminatory government policy.
“This ruling is a resounding rebuke of a discriminatory policy that tore families apart and treated entire nationalities as unworthy of due process,” Dozier said.
The court also ordered the State Department to vacate any visa denial based solely on the ban and to restore lawful, case-by-case evaluation of all affected applicants.
Judge Vargas’s opinion specifically warned against what she described as drawing “pernicious distinctions based upon nationality” within the immigrant visa system.
The lawsuit had argued the ban violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, the constitutional separation of powers, and the Fifth Amendment.
The decision represents a significant legal victory for immigration advocates who argued the policy was adopted without the required notice-and-comment rulemaking process.