A federal judge has struck down a suite of Trump‑era immigration policies that effectively froze asylum and other immigration decisions for people from 39 countries, ruling that the administration acted illegally when it pushed thousands of applicants into open‑ended limbo. The decision issued Friday by Chief U.S. District Judge John McConnell in Providence, R.I., orders the government to restart processing of asylum, work permits, green cards and citizenship applications that had been stalled under rules targeting nationals from dozens of nations across Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East.
A sweeping freeze on immigration decisions, now voided
In his ruling, McConnell found that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) had illegally halted final decisions on key immigration benefits for applicants from 39 countries that had been subject to Trump‑era travel bans or visa restrictions. The policies rolled out starting in November 2025 after a shooting in Washington, D.C. involving two National Guard members, instructed officers not to issue final approvals or denials on asylum claims, employment authorization documents (EADs), permanent residence and naturalization applications for affected nationals.
Reuters reported that the freeze applied to people already inside the United States, including long‑time residents and workers, not just to prospective travelers abroad. An American Immigration Lawyers Association brief said nationals of the 39 travel‑ban countries, and Palestinians with certain travel documents, saw their cases paused without clear timelines or individualized security findings.
McConnell concluded that USCIS had “implemented a range of unlawful policies” aimed at individuals from those countries and that the effect was to bar them from receiving final outcomes on their applications, leaving them stuck in temporary or expiring status.
The court’s reasoning: “contrary to law,” arbitrary and discriminatory
In a written opinion summarized by immigration law firms and advocacy groups, McConnell ruled that the 39‑country policy was contrary to federal immigration statutes, arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, and implemented without proper legal authority or notice‑and‑comment rulemaking.
The court faulted USCIS for failing to provide a reasoned explanation for the sweeping pause, ignoring the reliance interests of applicants who had followed the rules and paid fees, and using national security concerns as a pretext for effectively discriminatory practices. Al Jazeera quoted passages in which McConnell said the policy “threw the lives of countless people living in the United States into indeterminate legal limbo,” and noted that the government offered no evidence that blanket holds on 39 nations were necessary or tailored to actual threats.
He also pointed to the country‑based structure of the freeze, which targeted nationals from specific regions, including many Muslim‑majority and African states, in a pattern that echoes earlier Trump travel bans. While the administration has defended those bans as essential to vetting, McConnell emphasized that congressional immigration law does not allow the executive to quietly shut down lawful pathways or discriminate solely on the basis of nationality for people who are already here and seeking benefits.
Who was affected: 39 countries, thousands of lives
The challenged policies touched immigrants from 39 countries across Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East, many of which were previously subject to partial or full travel prohibitions and visa restrictions. Advocacy documents describe the affected list as overlapping heavily with Trump’s 2025 executive order expanding the travel ban, which fully barred entry for nationals of countries including Afghanistan, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen, and imposed narrower visa limits on others such as Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela.
Importantly, the Rhode Island case focused on people from those countries who were already living, working, or seeking protection in the United States. According to PBS and legal filings, the policies meant they could not obtain:
- Final asylum decisions
- Renewal or issuance of work permits
- Green card approvals (adjustment of status)
- Naturalization to U.S. citizenship
As a result, many were left unable to renew jobs, travel, sponsor family members or fully assert their rights. The non‑profit Democracy Forward, which represented some plaintiffs, said the rules “caused harm to workers, asylum‑seekers and communities across the country who were in limbo, unable to work, seek protections, or move forward with their lives.”
While the government has not released precise figures, immigration lawyers estimate that tens of thousands of applications were effectively frozen nationwide, clogging already backlogged systems and deepening uncertainty.
The lawsuit that brought the policies down
The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed in March 2026 by a coalition of immigrant‑rights groups and labor unions, which challenged what they called a “stealth shutdown” of key legal immigration pathways. Plaintiffs argued that DHS and USCIS had quietly issued internal guidance stopping adjudications for people from the 39 countries after the National Guard shooting in Washington, D.C., despite no evidence that the incident was linked to that broad set of nationalities.
Legal analyses note that the case built on years of litigation over Trump’s use of executive authority on immigration, including early travel bans that were partially blocked by lower courts before a narrower version was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. But unlike those earlier fights over entry at the border or consulates, this case zeroed in on the administration’s attempt to choke off benefits for people already present in the U.S. and working their way through statutory processes.
McConnell’s decision vacates several related measures, including a broad freeze on immigration benefits, a global asylum hold policy, and additional country‑specific review requirements. It also orders USCIS to promptly resume processing for the affected applications, though the government could seek to delay implementation while it considers an appeal.
Advocates hail a “critical victory”; Trump administration weighs appeal
Immigrant‑rights organizations and legal groups quickly welcomed the ruling. Karen Skopetsky, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, said the decision “affirms a basic principle: the federal government cannot shut down lawful immigration pathways or discriminate against individuals based on their country of origin.”
The Catholic Legal Immigration Network and the National Immigration Law Center, which have separately challenged a broader pause on immigrant visa processing affecting 75 countries, called McConnell’s opinion a “critical victory” that could bolster arguments in other cases targeting Trump‑era executive actions.
For many families, lawyers said, the ruling is more than symbolic. It means asylum officers and USCIS adjudicators must pick up files that have sat untouched for months, restoring a path toward work authorization and permanent status. “We finally have a clear directive that these cases cannot just be filed away and forgotten because of where someone was born,” one Rhode Island‑based attorney told PBS.
The Trump administration has not yet announced whether it will appeal. Reuters reported that Justice Department lawyers are reviewing the decision and could seek a stay at the First Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the policies were a lawful response to national security concerns.
What happens next for immigrants and U.S. policy
Practically, the ruling compels USCIS to restart adjudications for thousands of cases that had been frozen, though how quickly that happens will depend on agency capacity and any further court orders. Immigration practitioners say applicants should begin to see movement in the coming months as field offices and service centers receive new guidance rescinding the 39‑country holds.
The decision also sends a broader signal about the limits of executive power in immigration. While courts have sometimes deferred to presidents on who can enter the country in the name of security, McConnell drew a sharper line around shutting off benefits that Congress has created by statute, especially when done through internal memoranda rather than public rulemaking.
Policy experts note that the ruling lands amid a broader debate over Trump’s second‑term immigration agenda, which includes expanded travel bans, mass deportations and new limits on humanitarian protections. To the extent courts continue to scrutinize nationality‑based restrictions and informal freezes, the administration may find it harder to use agency guidance to reshape the legal immigration system without confronting Congress or the public.
For now, advocates are urging affected immigrants to consult attorneys and prepare to respond quickly if USCIS requests updated information or evidence as cases restart. After months in limbo, they say, the clock is finally ticking again, this time, in the direction of decisions rather than indefinite pause.