Lawsuit Challenges Immigration "Pause" on 75 Nations

Documented reports that, earlier this week, a group of U.S. citizens, aspiring immigrants and legal groups sued the Trump administration over its 75-country visa freeze, which has shut down nearly half of all legal immigration to the U.S.  

Filed in federal district court in Manhattan, the suit marks the first major challenge to the State Department’s extensive ban, which went into effect in late January. 

The Trump administration has said the freeze is aimed at immigrants who might “take welfare” and “extract wealth” from Americans — a nativist narrative that has become a hallmark of the federal immigration crackdown.  

“A visa is a privilege not a right,” State Department Principal Deputy Spokesperson Tommy Pigott said to Early Arrival in an emailed statement. “In accordance with law, Secretary (Marco) Rubio has made it clear that immigrants must be financially self-sufficient.”

But the new suit disputes whether the administration is really “in accordance with law,” alleging that the ban not only violates statutory and constitutional laws, but also upends legal precedent.

“DOS attempts to eviscerate decades of settled immigration law and practice with the stroke of a pen — stripping families of dignity, denying working people fair consideration, and supplanting Congress’s carefully calibrated framework with its own unlawful regime,” the complaint reads.  

Here are some arguments the case lays out against DOS’s visa freeze policy:

• DOS is taking a blanket approach to an individualized process: Rather than judge visa applicants on a case-by-case basis, the suit argues that the Trump administration is applying an “overbroad, erroneous” assumption of who might become a “public charge” — that is, an individual reliant on cash assistance or government-funded long-term institutional care — in order to enact bans on entire nationalities. 
• The travel ban is racist and discriminatory: The complaint alleges that “White Replacement” and other conspiracy theories were the motivation behind the travel ban, which overwhelmingly targets African nations. It also argues that the discriminatory targeting violates the equal protection and due process guarantees under the Fifth Amendment.
• The ban has also greatly harmed U.S. citizens and their families: Plaintiffs in the case, including families in New York and across the U.S., say that the policy has indefinitely separated them from their loved ones, limited access to critical healthcare, and led to severe emotional distress, among other harms. 

“The State Department cannot rewrite immigration law to advance a discriminatory agenda,” said Hasan Shafiqullah, supervising attorney in the Civil Law Reform Unit at The Legal Aid Society, in a statement to Early Arrival. He continued: “This policy is arbitrary, unlawful, and deeply harmful to families who have followed the rules and are simply seeking to reunite with their loved ones. We are going to court to stop this executive overreach and ensure the administration follows the law.”