A federal judge in Rhode Island struck down several Trump administration immigration policies that had frozen asylum applications and delayed immigration benefits for people from dozens of countries worldwide affected by the administration’s travel ban.

What did the judge say in his ruling?

In a 135-page ruling, Judge John J. McConnell Jr. said the policies unlawfully left immigrants living in the United States in legal uncertainty, preventing many from obtaining certain benefits and other protections to make adequate plans for themselves and their families.

“When USCIS first enacted the policies at the center of this litigation, the agency did not simply place a hold on adjudications. More fundamentally, the Challenged Policies placed the lives of countless individuals on hold—solely by virtue of their countries of birth,” Judge McConnell wrote.

He continued, “Over six months later, many of those individuals remain without work, without legal status, and without any meaningful ability to plan for their futures.”

Several nonprofits and unions filed a lawsuit against USCIS over flawed immigration policies

A group of nonprofits and unions sued U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Department of Homeland Security over four immigration policies that indefinitely froze the processing of benefit applications for people from 39 countries, referred to as travel ban countries, most of them in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East.

The following are the four challenged policies cited by the plaintiffs:

Global Asylum Hold Policy — Halted all asylum and withholding-of-removal adjudications, regardless of country of origin.

Benefits Hold Policy — Froze processing of green card, work permit and other benefit applications for nationals of travel ban countries.

Comprehensive Re-Review Policy — Required USCIS to reexamine already approved benefits for travel ban country nationals who entered the U.S. on or after Jan. 20, 2021.

Country-Specific Factors Policy — Directed USCIS officers to treat an applicant’s country of origin as a “significant negative factor” in discretionary benefit decisions.

These policies were implemented through a series of USCIS memos in November and December 2025, following two incidents involving Afghan nationals and inflammatory public statements by the president and then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem.

The judge declared USCIS’ immigration policies unlawful

The judge found that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services violated federal immigration law by broadly pausing applications and applying the law unequally. He criticized the administration for targeting immigrants who had followed legal immigration procedures, writing that the policies appeared to be influenced by anti-immigrant sentiment, according to The New York Times and the ruling.

“The court is reminded of a line often repeated in discussions around immigration policy: If people wish to immigrate to the United States, they ought to ‘follow the law’ and ‘do things the right way,’” he wrote. “This case serves as a perfect example of immigrants doing just that.”

Because of that, the court also vacated all four policies in their entirety, declaring them unlawful.

Advocacy group Democracy Forward, which represented the plaintiffs, praised the decision, arguing that the government cannot shut down legal immigration pathways or discriminate against people based on where they are from.

“This ruling reaffirms a basic principle: The federal government cannot shut down lawful immigration pathways or discriminate against people based on where they come from,” Skye Perryman, the organization’s president, told The New York Times.

“These unlawful policies caused enormous harm to families, workers, asylum seekers and communities across the country.”