A U.S. federal judge has struck down an immigration policy introduced by the Trump administration that restricted immigration benefits for people from dozens of countries, ruling that the measure violated federal law.
In a strongly worded decision delivered on Friday, Chief U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr. criticised the policy, saying it left thousands of immigrants uncertain about their legal status and accused immigration authorities of overstepping their powers.
The policy was introduced after the shooting of two National Guard members last year and affected immigrants from 39 countries across Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East. Under the directive, many applicants were unable to receive final decisions on requests involving asylum, work permits, permanent residency and citizenship.
Judge McConnell wrote that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) relied on powers it did not legally possess and failed to properly justify its actions.
“In enacting its latest immigration policies, USCIS: claims statutory and regulatory authority that it does not possess; makes decisions without the reasoned explanations that it must provide; acts without regard for the reliance interests of applicants that it must consider; and justifies its actions with pretextual concerns of ‘national security’ that mask anti-immigrant sentiments that it is forbidden from letting influence its decision-making,” he wrote.
“In legal terms that means USCIS’s actions are contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious.”
The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately comment on the ruling.
Advocacy groups welcomed the court’s decision, arguing that the policy unfairly targeted people based on their nationality and disrupted the lives of families, workers and asylum seekers.
Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, said: “This ruling reaffirms a basic principle: the federal government cannot shut down lawful immigration pathways or discriminate against people based on where they come from.”
“These unlawful policies caused enormous harm to families, workers, asylum seekers, and communities across the country who were left in limbo, unable to work, access protections, or move forward with their lives.”
The federal government had defended the restrictions, arguing that Congress grants the executive branch broad authority over immigration matters and national security decisions.
In court filings, government lawyers maintained that the policies were designed to guide immigration officials and ensure consistent decision-making.
Immigration advocates, however, argued that the measures unlawfully blocked access to immigration benefits for thousands of people who had followed legal procedures.
Jamal Abdi, president of the National Iranian American Council, called the ruling a major victory.
“This ruling sets a powerful precedent that the administration cannot ignore the law as laid down by Congress and cannot arbitrarily bar immigration benefits on the basis of national origin by fiat,” he said.
Shawn VanDiver, leader of the Afghan resettlement coalition #AfghanEvac, also praised the decision, describing it as “a significant victory for the rule of law and for thousands of Afghan allies and other immigrants who followed every requirement asked of them.”
He said many immigrants had faced uncertainty over jobs, education, travel plans and citizenship applications because of the delays created by the policy.
The ruling applies to immigration benefits handled by USCIS and does not affect asylum cases decided by immigration judges at the U.S. border.
