U.S. Court Invalidates Trump Administration's Immigration Visa Ban for 75 Countries

by SHIN DONGKUN Posted : August 22, 2026, 13:08Updated : August 22, 2026, 13:08


A U.S. federal court has halted the Trump administration's ban on immigration visas for citizens from 75 countries. The court ruled that the Department of State's actions violated federal immigration law.

According to a report by Yonhap News on the 22nd, The New York Times (NYT) reported on the 21st that Judge Janet Vargas of the Manhattan federal court invalidated the Department of State's policy restricting immigration visa issuance.

The court determined that the policy exceeded the legal authority granted to the Secretary of State. It specifically noted that there was insufficient evidence to support the administration's claim that immigrants from these 75 countries would impose a financial burden on U.S. citizens.

Additionally, the court criticized the Department of State for imposing blanket visa restrictions based solely on the applicants' country of origin, contrary to the intent of existing immigration laws that require consideration of individual circumstances.

As a result, visa denial decisions made under this policy have also been rendered invalid. There is a possibility that previously denied visa applications will be reviewed.

The Trump administration suspended immigration visa issuance for citizens of 75 countries starting January 21. The Department of State cited concerns that immigrants from these nations were likely to rely on U.S. welfare programs. The ban applied to immigration visas for permanent residency but excluded non-immigrant visas for tourism and study.

The list of affected countries included Somalia, Haiti, Iran, as well as Russia, Brazil, and Colombia. U.S. allies such as Jordan and Egypt were also included in the list.

U.S. civil rights and immigrant advocacy groups filed lawsuits against the policy, arguing that it was an illegal measure that restricted immigration visas based on nationality. The plaintiffs contended that the administration unilaterally altered a decades-old immigration law framework.

The plaintiffs welcomed the ruling, describing it as a significant victory for immigrant applicants who suffered separation from family and livelihoods due to the administration's visa suspension.

 




* This article has been translated by AI.