A federal judge issued a 135-page ruling today that declares illegal and nullifies four policies of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) that had frozen immigration applications from nationals of 39 countries, including Cuba, Venezuela, and Haiti.
Judge John J. McConnell Jr., Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, resolved the case Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS (No. 26-cv-132-JJM-PAS) in favor of a coalition of nonprofit organizations and unions that challenged the measures under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
The four canceled policies
The ruling annuls and renders four specific USCIS policies ineffective.
The first is the Policy on Suspension of Immigration Benefits, which blocked the final granting of asylum applications, work permits, permanent residency cards (green cards), and citizenship for nationals of the 39 countries included in the so-called travel ban.
The second is the Global Asylum Pause Policy, which suspended all decisions on asylum and protection from deportation, regardless of the applicant's nationality.
The third is the Mass Review Policy, which mandated a reevaluation of previously approved immigration benefits for individuals from those countries who had entered the United States since January 20, 2021.
The fourth is the Country of Origin Factors Policy, which instructed USCIS officials to use the country of origin as a significant negative factor when deciding immigration applications.
What does the judge say?
Judge McConnell was emphatic in describing the impact of the policies: "More than six months ago, USCIS implemented a series of policies that threw the lives of countless immigrants living in the United States into an uncertain legal limbo."
The magistrate noted that the affected individuals had met all the legal requirements: they submitted the necessary forms, paid the application fees, underwent biometrics data collection, and attended the required interviews.
However, the judge concluded that it was USCIS that did not comply with the law: "The agency has not 'followed the law' nor has it 'done things the right way'."
The ruling details that USCIS "claims statutory and regulatory authority that it does not possess; makes decisions without the reasoned explanations it must provide; acts without considering the interests of applicants; and justifies its actions with excuses of 'national security' that mask anti-immigrant sentiments it is prohibited from allowing to influence its decision-making."
In legal terms, the judge determined that "the actions of USCIS are contrary to the law and arbitrary and capricious."
Who are the plaintiffs and who are the defendants?
The lawsuit was filed by the Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island, the Refugee Dream Center, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the United Auto Workers (UAW), African Communities Together, the Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts, Partnership for the Advancement of New Americans, and American Gateways.
The defendants are USCIS, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Joseph Edlow as director of USCIS, and Markwayne Mullin as secretary of DHS, who replaced Kristi Noem in the position.
Context of judicial setbacks to Trump's immigration policy
This ruling adds to a series of adverse judicial decisions against Trump's immigration policies in 2026.
On April 25, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the administration's asylum policies illegal. Two days later, a federal judge in Maryland ordered the resumption of residency applications for 83 individuals whose cases had been frozen.
The Second Circuit also rejected the policy of mandatory detention without bail for migrants in New York, Connecticut, and Vermont.
The travel ban that triggered the pauses was established during Trump's second term and initially affected 19 countries; in December 2025, the list was expanded to approximately 39 countries, including Cuba, Venezuela, and Haiti.
Judge McConnell concluded his reasoning with a broad statement: "The rule of law must be applied equally to everyone."
Filed under: