Federal Judge Strikes Down Trump USCIS Policies Affecting 39 Countries

A federal judge in Rhode Island has struck down a set of Trump administration immigration policies that had stopped or delayed final decisions for many applicants from 39 countries.

Chief U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. ruled Friday that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services acted unlawfully when it used country-based policies to hold back asylum adjudications and other immigration benefit decisions. The order vacates the challenged policies and sets them aside.

What happened

The case was brought by immigrant service organizations and labor unions, including Rhode Island-based groups, against USCIS and federal immigration officials. The plaintiffs challenged policies adopted after a 2025 shooting of National Guard members in Washington, D.C., when the administration moved to tighten immigration processing for people from countries it described as higher-risk.

According to AP and CBS News, the policies left applicants from 39 African, Asian, Latin American and Middle Eastern countries unable to receive final decisions on applications that can determine whether they may work, receive protection, become permanent residents or naturalize as U.S. citizens.

What the court said

McConnell's 135-page ruling was unusually blunt. He said USCIS claimed authority it did not have, failed to give reasoned explanations, ignored applicants' reliance interests and justified the policies through national-security language that the court found pretextual.

The court vacated four policies: the Global Asylum Hold Policy, the Benefits Hold Policy, the Comprehensive Re-Review Policy and the Country-Specific Factors Policy. In plain terms, the judge found that the agency could not freeze lawful immigration pathways or treat country of origin as a broad negative factor without the legal authority and process required by federal law.

Image: President Donald Trump signs a presidential document at the White House - Wikimedia Commons / White House.

What is confirmed and not confirmed

Confirmed: the court ruled for the plaintiffs on the challenged USCIS policies; the decision affects pending USCIS benefit cases tied to the 39 travel-ban countries; and the judge set aside the asylum hold, benefits hold, re-review and country-specific-factor policies.

Not confirmed: this does not automatically grant any person's asylum, work permit, green card or citizenship application. It also does not, by itself, erase separate travel restrictions on entry from the countries covered by the administration's travel-ban framework.

Why it matters

The practical effect is potentially large because immigration benefits are often time-sensitive. A paused work permit can mean lost income. A delayed asylum decision can keep a person in prolonged uncertainty. A frozen green card or citizenship case can affect family status, travel, employment and long-term planning.

The legal significance is also bigger than one queue at USCIS. The ruling draws a line between security screening, which the government can often require, and indefinite agency-wide holds that change how statutory immigration systems work. The judge's point was not that the government can never review security risk. It was that USCIS still has to follow the law when it does.

What to watch next

Watch for an appeal, a request to stay the ruling and new USCIS guidance telling officers how to handle affected pending cases. Also watch whether applicants who were stuck under the holds begin receiving decisions, requests for evidence, interviews or reopened processing notices.

NoDechev rating: confirmed ruling, important scope limits. The USCIS policies were vacated, but individual applications still have to be adjudicated and the separate travel-ban entry framework remains a different legal fight.