A coalition of American citizens, immigration advocacy groups, and legal organizations has filed a federal lawsuit in an effort to halt a new visa policy announced by the State Department that has been deemed one of the most sweeping limitations on legal immigration in decades.
The lawsuit was filed Monday in federal court in Manhattan and challenges a policy announced and implemented last month by Secretary of State Marco Rubio that put the approval of visas for applicants from 75 countries on hold. More than 85 percent of the countries impacted are non-European, and many of them have predominantly non-white populations.
A “Pause” With Permanent Consequences
The State Department has labeled the policy a “pause” in order to reassess screening and vetting processes. However, immigration lawyers have indicated that the policy may halt almost half of all legal immigration to the United States if it is allowed to stand.
The State Department posted on social media that the policy was necessary in order to halt the entry of migrants who
“take welfare from the American people at unacceptable rates”
and who “often become public charges.”
The lawsuit, brought by the National Immigration Law Center and five other groups, describes these assertions as “unsupported and demonstrably false” because most legal immigrants are prohibited from participating in cash welfare benefits for extended periods of time after entering the country, according to federal data that has been available for many years.
Most family-based immigrants face a five-year waiting period before they can qualify for federal means-tested benefits, while employment-based immigrants are simply ineligible, according to data from the Congressional Research Service.
Echoes of Discredited Racial Quotas
According to legal advocates, the new policy bears a “suspicious resemblance” to the exclusionary immigration systems that were torn down during the civil rights movement.
The list of countries whose nationals are barred from entering the United States has an “eerie resemblance” to the national origin quotas that were established by immigration laws in the 1920s, according to Joanna Cuevas Ingram, a senior staff attorney with the National Immigration Law Center.
The national origin quotas were established in order to maintain a white, European-dominated population, and they were eventually struck down in 1965 when Congress found that race-based immigration laws were not consistent with the principles of equality.
“The justifications offered here appear to be a pretext,”
Cuevas Ingram said,
“to limit legal immigration under the statute passed by Congress and to reinstate old racial quotas under a different name.”
The Administration’s Legal Defense: Privilege, Not a Right
The State Department has justified the policy by saying that visas are a privilege and not a right, and that the executive branch has the power to require financial self-sufficiency.
“Such a requirement prevents billions in waste, fraud, and abuse and protects public benefits for Americans,”
said State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott, adding that the State Department would continue to
“fight for American citizens first.”
But immigration experts say that it is Congress, and not the executive branch, that determines the eligibility criteria for immigrant visas, and that US law does not provide for blanket bans on visas based on nationality or presumed wealth.
A Pattern Rooted in Trump-Era Immigration Policy
The latest visa ban is part of a larger trend that has been unfolding since the first term of Donald Trump, during which immigration bans were justified on the basis of national security, cultural fit, and economic burden.
In 2018, the Supreme Court upheld Trump’s travel ban on several mainly Muslim countries, in a decision that established the president’s broad powers over who may enter the United States. This decision casts a long shadow over the current case.
However, lawyers point out that the latest policy is based on a different and weaker rationale. Instead of being justified on national security grounds, it is based on hypothetical economic calculations about welfare benefits, which have been repeatedly discredited by the courts.
Families Separated by Administrative Fiat
The lawsuit illustrates how the policy has already led to the separation of families, even though the applicants have fully complied with the existing immigration law.
One of the plaintiffs is Cesar Andred Aguirre, a US citizen from Long Island, who went back to Guatemala with his wife for her visa interview, only to be told that she would not be allowed to return. Their baby daughter, who has Turner syndrome and needs specialized medical care that is not available in Guatemala, is currently living with her mother.
Another plaintiff is Munthaz Mahmud Hassen, a US citizen from Rochester, who has been separated from his two teenage sons, whose visa applications were already approved and paid for before the visa ban came into effect.
Blocking Talent Alongside Families
The prohibition has also impacted highly skilled individuals. Fernando Lizcano Losada, an endocrinologist from Colombia, was set to continue his research at Harvard Medical School before the suspension put a stop to his visa.
Losada explained that he could have used the research infrastructure in the US to contribute to the progress of breast cancer and endocrine therapies. This situation illustrates a concern that has been raised by universities and research institutions that the policy may negatively impact the competitiveness of the US in scientific and medical fields.
Immigrants account for more than 40 percent of the US doctoral-level scientists and engineers, according to the National Science Foundation.
“Public Charge” and Judicial Resistance
The core issue in the lawsuit is the renewed push by the administration to further expand the definition of “public charge.” In 2019, the Department of Homeland Security sought to expand the definition of “public charge” to include benefits such as food stamps, Medicaid, and public housing.
This policy was stayed by five federal courts, which determined that it was not in line with congressional intent and may be illegal.
However, the current administration has continued to push this policy, this time through visa suspensions, rather than through rulemaking, and has essentially taken advantage of the delay between policy implementation and judicial review.
Legal Strategy or Calculated Defiance?
Critics argue the administration is deliberately pushing legally dubious policies, betting that months or years of litigation will allow them to function regardless of their ultimate fate in court.
Cuevas Ingram described the approach as a calculated violation of immigration law, designed to deter migration through uncertainty and delay rather than through lawful reform.
“Families and working people who followed the rules are being left in limbo,”
she said,
“in a way that is patently discriminatory and insulting to their dignity.”
A Test Case for Immigration Law and Executive Power
The lawsuit asks the court to declare the visa ban unlawful and set it aside, arguing that Congress has never authorized nationality-based bans or wealth tests for immigrant eligibility.
Beyond its immediate legal implications, the case represents a broader test of how far the executive branch can go in reshaping immigration policy without congressional approval—and whether economic rhetoric can be used to revive exclusionary practices long rejected by US law.
As the courts weigh in, thousands of families, workers, and institutions remain caught between executive power and constitutional limits, waiting to see whether decades of settled immigration law will hold.
