The Trump administration broke U.S. law with a policy denying visas to people based on nationality, a federal court has ruled.
U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas in New York held Aug. 21 that the 75-nation ban exceeded U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s regulatory and legal authority and violated anti-discrimination provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
Announced by Rubio in January, the ban targeted nationals from countries spanning Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, Latin America and the Middle East, plus the Bahamas, Burma, Cambodia, Colombia, Kuwait, Russia, Rwanda and Sudan.
In some ways it was a simple case to decide, Vargas said in her 61-page decision.
“The INA prohibits discrimination on the basis of nationality in the issuance of immigrant visas. The policy categorically bans nationals of 75 countries from receiving immigrant visas, even when otherwise eligible, based solely on their nationality,” she wrote. “The policy is irreconcilable with the INA’s antidiscrimination provision … and it exceeds Congress’ express limitation on the secretary of state’s authority.”
The ruling came in Catholic Legal Immigration Network, et al, v. Marco Rubio, a federal lawsuit filed in February by CLINIC, African Communities Together and a dozen individual plaintiffs. They are represented by Democracy Forward, The National Immigration Law Center, the Legal Aid Society, the Western Center on Law and Poverty, the Center for Constitutional Rights and Colombo and Hurd.
The plaintiffs and their attorneys filed an emergency motion Aug. 27 urging Vargas to ensure her ruling is implemented despite the administration’s sudden pause on worldwide visa processing.
Diana Konate
“The administration cannot keep circumventing the legal system,” said Diana Konate, deputy executive director of African Communities Together. “This ban is unjust, and the court has agreed. We won’t let the administration continue separating families and targeting our communities. It must resume processing visas and follow the law.”
Democracy Forward President Skye Perryman said the extended visa hold — supposedly to provide training time for embassy staffs — is just as illegal and unenforceable as the one struck down Aug. 21.
“Yet the administration is egregiously and flagrantly ignoring a duly issued court order and enforcing unlawful policies that continue to inflict enormous harm on families and communities across the country,” she said.
Perryman described Vargas’ ruling as “a critical rebuke of an unlawful and discriminatory policy that inflicted enormous harm on families and communities across the country” and sought “to blacklist entire countries, separate families and deny people rights guaranteed by the Constitution without being held accountable.”
Antionette Dozier
Vargas’ description of the travel ban as “pernicious” testifies to the travesty the policy was, said Antionette Dozier, senior attorney for the Western Center on Law and Poverty.
“For 75 countries’ worth of families, this decision means a return to fair, case-by-case review, and a chance to be reunited with their loved ones. No administration gets to override the law because it deems an applicant’s nationality unacceptable.”
It is a relief that members of separated families who can now be considered for visas based on need instead of nationality, said Anna Gallagher, executive director of Catholic Legal Immigration Network.
“The suspension of lawful visa issuance across 75 countries separated spouses, parents and children who were simply following the legal immigration process. Catholic social teaching calls us to uphold the dignity of every person and recognize the family as the foundation of society,” Gallagher said.
Anna Gallagher
The rule of law was another winner in the ruling, Konate said.
“This unlawful and racist ban caused immeasurable harm, cruelly keeping families and loved ones apart. Today, we are elated to tell our community members: This ban is no more,” said Konate, whose organization was an associational plaintiff in the case.
The State Department responded to the ruling by labeling Vargas a “rogue judge,” Fox News reported.
“American taxpayer-funded public benefits belong to Americans,” State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott told the network. “President Trump has made clear that immigrants must be financially self-sufficient to protect these public benefits for American citizens. This rogue judge’s misguided opinion wrongfully undermines the longstanding legal authority of the secretary of state.”
As recently as May, the American Bar Association estimated the administration has used the term “rogue” or “activist” for judges in 200 instances.
The truth is, many of the rulings adverse to the administration have been handed down by Republican judges and from districts across the country. “It is just not true, by any remotely objective measure, that the rulings adverse to the Trump administration are coming from a small subset of “liberal” district court judges in a handful of district courts,” according to the ABA.