U.S. Court Strikes Down Trump-Era Immigration Restrictions Targeting 39 Countries

A U.S. federal court has struck down immigration restrictions introduced under former President Donald Trump’s administration that targeted applicants from 39 countries across Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America.

The ruling, delivered on Friday by Chief U.S. District Judge John McConnell in Providence, Rhode Island, invalidated a series of policies implemented by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which had restricted asylum applications, work permits, green card processing, and citizenship pathways for nationals of those countries.

According to the court, the policies placed applicants in “prolonged legal uncertainty” without justified grounds, despite many having followed proper legal procedures under U.S. law.

Judge McConnell, appointed during the Obama administration, stated that immigration applicants were being forced into extended delays without evidence of criminal wrongdoing. He emphasized that denying or delaying applications based solely on nationality was inconsistent with U.S. legal principles.

The ruling also criticized USCIS, saying the agency appeared to be influenced by anti-immigration bias in its decision-making process and had failed to properly fulfill its statutory obligations under federal law.

The challenged policy originated from a broader set of travel and immigration restrictions issued in March, which included partial or full bans on nationals from countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, Haiti, Somalia, Venezuela, and Syria. Following those directives, USCIS had also paused or restricted processing of immigration-related applications from affected nationals.

The case was brought by a coalition of immigration advocacy groups and labor organizations, arguing that the restrictions were discriminatory and unlawful. The court ultimately sided with the plaintiffs, ordering the policies to be overturned.

A spokesperson for the legal group Democracy Forward, which represented the plaintiffs, welcomed the decision, calling it a reaffirmation of a core American principle that lawful immigration pathways cannot be arbitrarily blocked or applied in a discriminatory manner.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security declined to comment on the ruling when contacted by Reuters.