75-country green card freeze: Lawsuit says Trump's curbs are unlawful
A lawsuit challenges the Trump administration's freeze on green cards for 75 countries, arguing it unlawfully blocks lawful immigration using public charge rules
 "75-country green card freeze: Lawsuit says Trump's curbs are unlawful")
A Trump administration policy suspending green cards over concerns of reliance on public benefits is unlawful, a new lawsuit argues.
The freeze on immigrant visas for 75 countries violates the Administrative Procedure Act and Immigration and Nationality Act as well as equal protections under the Constitution, according to the complaint filed in the Southern District of New York.
“This administration is trying to shut down lawful immigration from nearly half the countries in the world without legal authority or justification,” said Anna Gallagher, executive director of Catholic Legal Immigration Network Inc., the lead plaintiff in the suit.
The State Department starting Jan. 21 paused green cards for countries including Brazil, Colombia, Nigeria, and Iran while it reviews policies to assess immigrants’ likelihood of using public benefits. The agency hasn’t said how long that review could last.
It was the latest in a series of abrupt policy changes adding new bans or restrictions on entry to the US for immigrants and foreign visitors.
Individual plaintiffs joining the suit include an endocrinologist from Colombia approved for an EB-1A first preference employment-based visa now blocked from entering the country. Another Colombian-born engineer working in clean energy was approved for the EB-2 “national interest waiver” green card category.
Numerical limits and per-country caps on employment-based green cards mean those immigrants won’t just face delays but could lose their visa under this year’s cap while the freeze is in effect, the lawsuit says.
Other plaintiffs are US citizens petitioning to bring spouses and children to the US.
The INA allows for would-be immigrants to be denied entry based on a determination they’ll become a “public charge,” or reliant on public benefits. But that provision of the law has never been used as a sweeping bar to admissions, the suit argues. That basis for the visa ban is also based on a false premise because most immigrant visa applicants aren’t eligible for government assistance and remain ineligible for years.
The federal immigration statute also prohibits categorical nationality or country-level discrimination in issuance of immigrant visas, the lawsuit argues. The basis for the visa freeze mirrors other rhetoric from Trump administration officials based on racial stereotypes, it argues.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has made it clear immigrants must be financially self sufficient to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse, State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott said in a statement.
“The Department is pausing issuance to evaluate and enhance screening and vetting procedures - but we will never stop fighting for American citizens first,” Pigott said.
A federal judge in US Court for the District of Nevada last month enjoined the agency from refusing visa applications based on the public charge policy for two adoptive daughters of a US citizen who brought a lawsuit there. The visa freeze “makes an end run” around specific grounds of visa eligibility laid out by Congress, the order found.
Plaintiffs are represented by National Immigration Law Center, Democracy Forward Foundation, the Legal Aid Society, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Western Center on Law & Poverty, and Colombo & Hurd.
The case is Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. v. Rubio, S.D.N.Y., No. 1:26-cv-00858, complaint filed 2/2/26.