Agency Illegally Froze Hundreds of Thousands of Immigration Cases

NEWS & RESEARCH

Between December 2025 and January 2026, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a series of policy memos pausing the processing of immigration applications for nationals of 39 countries, primarily in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. A federal judge struck down the policies, ruling that USCIS had used national security concerns as a pretext to "mask anti-immigrant sentiments," and ordered the government to resume processing immediately. However, USCIS ignored the ruling entirely, prompting advocacy groups to file an emergency motion to enforce it and forcing the judge to issue a second order making it clear that there was "no excuse" for noncompliance. The Trump administration appealed the decision the following day and announced plans to seek a stay to block the judge’s order while the appeals process plays out.

SOURCES: PBS | Newsweek | American Immigration Council | Washington Post

ANALYSIS & OPINION

In his ruling, Chief Judge John McConnell found that USCIS acted arbitrarily and capriciously, offering no reasoned explanation for its actions. The agency created the policy in response to a shooting by a troubled Afghan man, yet never explained why it was necessary to suspend immigration processing for nationals of countries as varied as Cuba, Venezuela, and Nigeria based on the actions of a single individual from Afghanistan. McConnell found that the policy amounted to unlawful discrimination based solely on national origin, and that USCIS was claiming "statutory and regulatory authority that it does not possess." The judge also faulted the agency for ignoring the reliance interests of applicants—people who had built their lives around the expectation that the government would process their cases. The consequences were immediate and concrete: green cards, citizenship applications, asylum cases, and work permits all stalled, leaving people at risk of losing their jobs, their legal status, or their right to remain in the country—even though many had already paid substantial fees for the government to review their cases. The policy, McConnell wrote, "threw the lives of countless immigrants living in the United States into indeterminate legal limbo.” Also troubling: the Trump administration's defiance of the court's initial ruling is not an isolated incident, but part of a broader pattern of ignoring judicial orders that stand in the way of its agenda.

SOURCES: NBC | American Immigration Council

HOW TO FIX IT

Federal action:

• Pass the NO BAN Act, which would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) so that any immigration restriction would need to be based on specific and credible evidence. It would also mandate that Congress be consulted before any such restrictions are imposed.

• Pass legislation explicitly requiring USCIS to adjudicate applications within statutory timeframes, regardless of executive proclamations.

Litigation:

• Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS: The most significant case, filed by a coalition of nonprofits and labor unions. Chief Judge McConnell vacated the USCIS policies in a ruling that applies broadly, not just to named plaintiffs. The Trump administration has appealed.

• Doe v. Trump: Filed by individuals in Massachusetts on statutory and constitutional grounds. A judge ordered USCIS to lift the processing hold for 266 named plaintiffs.

• Saghafi v. Edlow: Filed by 83 plaintiffs in Maryland, nearly all citizens of Afghanistan, Eritrea, Iran, Syria, or Venezuela, who argued the indefinite pause would cause irreparable harm to their careers, businesses, and families. A judge agreed and granted a preliminary injunction ordering USCIS to resume processing their applications. Relief here is limited to named plaintiffs.

• Project Citizenship case: Fourteen green card holders from Haiti, Venezuela, and Côte d'Ivoire, represented by Harvard Law School's Immigration and Refugee Clinic, argue the pause on citizenship applications violates equal protection and a federal statute requiring USCIS to decide naturalization applications within 120 days of an interview. Pending.

• As of June 2026, at least 65 lawsuits had been filed challenging the freeze across the country.

Legislation:  S.398 - NO BAN Act