Trump’s Green Card Freeze on Applicants from 75 Countries is Unlawful: Judge

A federal judge in Washington has ruled that an ongoing green card freeze based on concerns that applicants from 75 countries could become dependent on public benefits is unlawful.

The public charge policy introduced by Secretary of State Marco Rubio constitutes an exercise of authority specifically denied by Congress under the Immigration and Nationality Act, Judge Amit Mehta of the US District Court for the District of Columbia held in a July 31 opinion.

The State Department policy, adopted in January, has blocked mainly family-based immigrant visa applicants and some employment-based green card applicants from countries including Nigeria, Colombia, Russia and Egypt.

The policy has been challenged in multiple lawsuits before federal district courts in New York and Washington, DC. Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security has tightened its own public charge policies through final regulations issued last month.

Newton De Moura Gomes, a Brazilian national, sued the State Department after the policy halted his application for an immigrant visa under the EB-5 investor visa programme. His complaint, filed in May, alleged multiple violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, including the unlawful withholding of an agency decision and the implementation of a policy contrary to law. Mehta agreed.

"Under the Public Charge Policy, the Secretary of State is doing precisely what the INA prohibits: he is controlling individual visa application determinations," Mehta wrote.

The policy clearly nullifies the discretionary authority of consular officers to decide individual applications, he said. Mehta also held that the doctrine of consular non-reviewability, which generally shields such decisions from judicial review, did not prevent the court from considering the case because it challenged a State Department policy rather than an individual visa determination.

His order barred the State Department from applying the public charge policy to De Moura Gomes' visa application and directed the department to adjudicate his application once it is deemed complete by a consular officer.

The State Department's policy is blatantly unlawful and fundamentally unfair, said Edward Ramos, a partner at Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A. and counsel for De Moura Gomes.

"We are pleased the Court recognised that the State Department cannot require individualised review and then dictate refusal regardless of the result," he said in a statement. "Congress entrusted visa decisions to consular officers applying the law to each case. This policy stripped them of that judgment and predetermined the outcome."

A State Department spokesperson said the agency does not comment on ongoing litigation as a matter of policy, but added that the Trump administration is "upholding the highest standards of screening and vetting of visa applicants."

The case is De Moura Gomes v. Rubio, US District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 1:26-cv-01883, opinion issued on July 31, 2026.

For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.