the news now

The world's news, cross-checked among reputable sources.

This is a new development in a story we have covered before · earlier coverage

US Federal Judge Overturns Trump Administration's Immigrant Visa Ban on 75 Countries

13 sources across 9 countries

Who reported this

  • Clarin Argentina · Centre-right · Grupo Clarin
  • Infobae Argentina · Centre-right · Daniel Hadad
  • La Nacion Argentina · Centre-right · Saguier family
  • G1 Brazil · Centre-left · Grupo Globo (Marinho family)
  • UOL Brazil · Centre-left · Grupo Folha
  • Le Monde France · Centre-left · Fonds pour l'independance de la presse
  • France 24 France · Centre · Public · France Medias Monde (French state holding)
  • South China Morning Post Hong Kong · Centre-right · Alibaba Group
  • ANSA Italy · Centre · Publisher cooperative
  • Novaya Gazeta Europe Latvia · Centre-left · Crowdfunded; exiled Russian newsroom
  • Dawn Pakistan · Centre-left · Pakistan Herald Publications (Haroon family)
  • Bangkok Post Thailand · Centre · Post Publishing PCL
  • CNN United States · Centre-left · Warner Bros. Discovery

What the colours mean

  • Left
  • Centre-left
  • Centre
  • Centre-right
  • Right
  • A hatched block means the outlet is affiliated with, or controlled by, a state.

Political lean describes where an outlet sits within the politics of its own country. It is never a position on a single global scale.

Political lean is comparable inside one country and not across them, which is why the bar groups by country first. Publicly funded broadcasters are not marked as state-linked.

The owner of each outlet is listed as a matter of record, not as a judgement about the outlet.

A federal judge in New York has annulled a Trump administration policy that suspended the issuance of permanent residence visas to citizens of 75 countries. Judge Jeannette Vargas ruled on Friday that the policy was contrary to law and exceeded the statutory authority of Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The measure, which took effect on January 21, targeted applicants from nearly 40 percent of the world's nations, including Brazil, Russia, Iran, Somalia, Egypt, Nigeria, Thailand, and Pakistan. The ban specifically applied to immigrant visas for permanent residence, such as those for family reunification or skilled employment, but did not affect nonimmigrant visas for tourism or study.

The State Department had justified the freeze by claiming that immigrants from these specific countries represented a high risk of becoming a public charge or depending on social assistance. However, Judge Vargas found that consular officers were improperly instructed to deny visas based solely on the applicant's nationality, even when the individuals met all other requirements. The ruling notes that a 1965 law prohibits discrimination by nationality in granting visas and requires an individualized assessment of a person's finances, health, and skills. The decision revokes any visa denials based exclusively on this policy, though denials based on other legal grounds remain in effect.

The lawsuit was filed by immigrant rights groups, including the Catholic Legal Immigration Network and African Communities Together, as well as US citizens sponsoring family members and professional applicants. Among the plaintiffs were five Colombians, including a Harvard graduate, and US citizens with relatives in Ghana, Jamaica, Guatemala, and Ethiopia. While the judge agreed that the policy did not require a prior public comment period, she rejected the administration's reliance on a 2018 Supreme Court ruling regarding travel bans, stating this case concerned the issuance of visas rather than the power to decide who may enter the country.

The government may appeal the decision. Judge Vargas has set September 11 as the deadline for both parties to propose how to resolve the remaining points of the case. This ruling follows other judicial setbacks for the administration, including the annulment of a 100,000 dollar fee for certain work visas and a Supreme Court decision striking down a decree that sought to eliminate birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants.

How each side framed it

Centre-left
These outlets framed the ruling as a victory for human rights and a significant setback to an aggressive, discriminatory immigration crackdown.
Centre
These outlets provided a neutral summary of the court's decision and the scope of the overturned visa freeze.
Centre-right
These outlets focused on the legal specifics of the ruling, the list of affected countries, and the administration's stated goal of protecting public finances.

Sources

100% of the statements in this article were traced back to the source articles listed above.