Trump's 75-Country Green Card Freeze Is Unlawful, Judge Says (1)

Trump's 75-Country Green Card Freeze Is Unlawful, Judge Says (1). Bloomberg Law, Daily Labor Report. Published 2026-08-03. NOTE: this piece covers the PARALLEL July 31 ruling by Judge Amit Mehta (D.D.C.) in De Moura Gomes v. Rubio — not the August 21 Vargas ruling.

An ongoing green card freeze based on concerns that applicants from 75 countries could become dependent on public benefits is unlawful, a federal judge in Washington ruled.

The public charge policy issued by Secretary of State Marco Rubio is an exercise of authority specifically denied by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act, Judge Amit Mehta of the US District Court for the District of Columbia held in a July 31 opinion.

The State Department policy adopted in January has blocked mostly family-based immigrant visa applicants and some employment-based green card seekers from countries including Nigeria, Colombia, Russia, and Egypt.

It's been challenged by multiple lawsuits in New York and DC district courts. The Department of Homeland Security, meanwhile, has tightened its own public charge policies in final regulations issued last month.

Newton De Moura Gomes, a Brazilian national, sued the State Department after the policy halted his application for an immigrant visa through the EB-5 investor visa program. His May complaint alleged multiple violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, including unlawful withholding of an agency decision and policy contrary to law. Mehta agreed.

"Under the Public Charge Policy, the Secretary of State is doing precisely what the INA prohibits: he is controlling individual visa application determinations," Mehta wrote.

The policy plainly nullifies discretionary authority of consular officers on individual applications, he wrote. Mehta also found that the doctrine of consular nonreviewability, which generally shields those decisions from judicial review, does not block consideration of the case because it challenged a State Department policy.

His order enjoined the State Department from applying the public charge policy to De Moura Gomes' visa request and to adjudicate his application when it's deemed complete by a consular officer.

The State Department policy is blatantly unlawful and fundamentally unfair, said Edward Ramos, a partner at Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A. and counsel for De Moura Gomes.

"We are pleased the Court recognized that the State Department cannot require individualized review and then dictate refusal regardless of the result," he said in a statement. "Congress entrusted visa decisions to consular officers applying the law to each case. This policy stripped them of that judgment and predetermined the outcome."

A State Department spokesperson said the agency doesn't comment on ongoing litigation as a general matter, but added that the Trump administration is "upholding the highest standards of screening and vetting of visa applicants."

The case is De Moura Gomes v. Rubio, D.D.C., No. 1:26-cv-01883, opinion issued 7/31/26.