75-Country Visa Pause Lawsuit: CLINIC v. Rubio Claims and Defenses

The 75-country visa pause lawsuit is Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. v. Rubio, filed February 2, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York before Judge Jeannette A. Vargas. It challenges the State Department’s January 21, 2026 suspension of immigrant visa issuance for nationals of 75 countries, arguing the blanket pause is an unlawful, nationality-based ban imposed without the individualized review federal immigration law requires.¹

What the Pause Does

The suspension took effect January 21, 2026 through internal State Department consular cables sent to U.S. embassies, not through a presidential proclamation. The cables instructed posts in the affected countries to stop issuing immigrant visas during a review of screening and eligibility criteria. The legal authority cited is the Secretary of State’s administrative power over visa processing.²³

The administration’s stated rationale is public charge: it says immigrants from the listed countries are more likely to become dependent on government benefits, and it framed the pause as necessary to ensure immigrants are “financially self-sufficient and not be a financial burden to Americans.” Rather than evaluating applicants individually, the policy denies immigrant visas to every applicant from the listed countries as a group.³²

The 75 affected countries span Africa, the Caribbean, Latin America, Asia, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe. The pause applies only to immigrant visas. Tourist and other nonimmigrant visas are not affected, and applicants may still file paperwork and attend interviews, but no visa is issued at the end. Two narrow exceptions exist: dual nationals with a valid passport from a country not on the list, and children being adopted by American citizens who qualify for a National Interest Exception.³

Both family-sponsored and employment-based categories are affected. A letter from 73 House Democrats put the reach at roughly 40 to 45 percent of all immigrant visas issued in recent years.⁴

Who Is Suing

The case number is 1:26-cv-00858. It is not a class action.⁵⁶

The organizational plaintiffs are the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC) and African Communities Together. They are joined by 11 individual plaintiffs, including working professionals from Colombia seeking employment-based visas and U.S. citizens trying to bring family members from Ghana, Ethiopia, Jamaica, and Guatemala. The plaintiffs’ situations include a U.S. citizen mother in New York separated from four adult children and three grandchildren in Ghana despite approved and fully paid petitions; a U.S. citizen father on Long Island separated from his wife and nursing infant stranded in Guatemala after a scheduled interview abroad; and a Colombian physician and endocrinologist who holds an approved first-preference immigration visa but cannot receive it solely because of the country-wide ban.⁷⁸

The defendants are the U.S. Department of State and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Counsel for the plaintiffs includes the Center for Constitutional Rights, the National Immigration Law Center, Democracy Forward, The Legal Aid Society of New York, the Western Center on Law & Poverty, and the firm Colombo & Hurd.¹⁹

The Legal Claims

The complaint stacks statutory, procedural, and constitutional theories. On procedure, the plaintiffs argue the State Department rewrote visa-processing rules and the definition of “public charge” through internal cables without notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act. On statute, they argue the blanket country-based ban violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, which they say requires individualized determinations and prohibits nationality-based discrimination in immigrant visa issuance. On the Constitution, they allege the ban violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment because it was motivated by discriminatory intent, and that it exceeds executive authority in violation of the separation of powers. The complaint also invokes the Accardi doctrine, which requires agencies to follow their own established procedures.¹⁹⁷

Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said “Congress and the Constitution prohibit white supremacy as grounds for immigration policy.”⁹

How the Government Is Defending the Pause

The administration has defended the policy primarily on public-charge grounds, arguing that applicants from the 75 countries pose a higher risk of relying on U.S. government benefits, and it describes the pause as part of a broader review of screening and vetting procedures for applicants from countries it deems “high risk” for public benefits usage. The government filed a brief opposing the plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion.³¹ The plaintiffs counter that the administration has not offered individualized evidence for its claims and is applying a blanket ban in place of the case-by-case evaluation federal law requires.²

Where the Case Stands

As of mid-2026, the case is pending at the district court. Both sides have filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment, and the court is reviewing the record to decide whether the visa ban is lawful. The plaintiffs have asked the court to declare the ban unlawful, vacate it, and order the government to return to regular, individualized visa processing. No temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction has been issued, and no appellate proceedings have begun.¹¹⁰

A Second Lawsuit in the Works

A separate class action is being organized by Red Eagle Law, which describes its effort as a backup to CLINIC. Where CLINIC v. Rubio seeks vacatur under the APA, the Red Eagle case plans to pursue class certification on behalf of all similarly situated immigrant visa applicants and to add theories including the Mandamus Act and an ultra vires challenge. The firm set a filing date of July 10, 2026. As of late June 2026, the complaint had not been filed and the court venue had not been selected.¹¹

How This Differs From the 39-Country Travel Ban

The 75-country immigrant visa pause is separate from Presidential Proclamation 10998, the December 2025 travel ban covering 39 countries. The proclamation draws on Sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the same authority the Supreme Court upheld in Trump v. Hawaii (2018), and restricts a broader range of visa categories. The visa pause was issued administratively through consular cables and targets only immigrant visas, which is why the CLINIC plaintiffs focus their challenge on the INA’s anti-discrimination provision (8 U.S.C. § 1152), the APA’s procedural requirements, and Fifth Amendment due process protections.¹² A ruling in CLINIC v. Rubio would speak to the immigrant visa pause; it would not, on its own, undo the separate travel ban.

1
NILC. CLINIC v. Rubio
2
Center for Constitutional Rights. Questions and Answers About 75-Country Visa Ban Lawsuit
3
U.S. Department of State. Immigrant Visa Processing Updates for Nationalities at High Risk of Public Benefits Usage
4
Office of Representative Ritchie Torres. Reps. Ritchie Torres and Yvette Clarke Led 73 Democrats in Condemning the Trump Admin’s Unilateral Visa Pause for 75 Nations
5
CourtListener. Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. v. Rubio
6
Western Center on Law & Poverty. CLINIC v. Rubio
7
Center for Constitutional Rights. CLINIC v. Rubio
8
NILC. Immigrant Families, Workers, Legal Assistance Groups Challenge Trump Admin’s 75-Country Visa Ban in Federal Court
9
Democracy Forward. Immigrant Families, Workers, Legal Assistance Groups Challenge Trump Admin’s 75-Country Visa Ban in Federal Court
10
CLINIC. CLINIC Court Watch: Federal Immigration Case Updates
11
Red Eagle Law. 75-Country Pause Lawsuit
12
The White House. Restricting and Limiting the Entry of Foreign Nationals To Protect the Security of the United States