- A federal judge ruled the public charge visa freeze unlawful, citing it exceeds the Secretary of State’s legal authority.
- The policy targeted seventy-five countries across Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America, potentially reducing legal immigration by one-third.
- While the ruling favored one Brazilian family, it creates a critical precedent for hundreds of thousands of applicants.
The State Department’s public charge visa freeze affecting nationals of 75 countries was unlawful, U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta ruled July 31, but the order initially required action only in the case brought by Brazilian applicant Newton De Moura Gomes and his family.
The policy had halted immigrant visa processing for people deemed at high risk of becoming dependent on U.S. public benefits. It primarily affected family-based immigrant visa applicants and some employment-based green card seekers.
The judge ruled in De Moura Gomes v. Rubio, Case No. 1:26-cv-01883. His 19-page Memorandum Opinion said Secretary of State Marco Rubio exceeded his legal authority by taking visa decisions away from individual consular officers.
“Under the Public Charge Policy, the Secretary of State is doing precisely what the INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] prohibits: he is controlling individual visa application determinations.”
The policy took effect January 21, 2026, after the State Department announced it January 14. The ruling declared the measure unlawful, but did not automatically erase it nationwide.
Gomes, an EB-5 investor visa applicant, had seen his case stalled despite meeting the financial and legal requirements described in the litigation. The order directed the department to adjudicate his case within 60 days.
The order covers 75 designated countries, not India
The freeze applied to nationals of 75 countries across Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, Asia, Eastern Europe and the Caribbean. India was not included.
The full list was:
| Countries | Countries | Countries |
|---|---|---|
| Afghanistan | Albania | Algeria |
| Antigua and Barbuda | Armenia | Azerbaijan |
| Bahamas | Bangladesh | Barbados |
| Belarus | Belize | Bhutan |
| Bosnia and Herzegovina | Brazil | Burma |
| Cambodia | Cameroon | Cape Verde |
| Colombia | Cote d'Ivoire | Cuba |
| Democratic Republic of the Congo | Dominica | Egypt |
| Eritrea | Ethiopia | Fiji |
| The Gambia | Georgia | Ghana |
| Grenada | Guatemala | Guinea |
| Haiti | Iran | Iraq |
| Jamaica | Jordan | Kazakhstan |
| Kosovo | Kuwait | Kyrgyz Republic |
| Laos | Lebanon | Liberia |
| Libya | Moldova | Mongolia |
| Montenegro | Morocco | Nepal |
| Nicaragua | Nigeria | North Macedonia |
| Pakistan | Republic of the Congo | Russia |
| Rwanda | Saint Kitts and Nevis | Saint Lucia |
| Saint Vincent and the Grenadines | Senegal | Sierra Leone |
| Somalia | South Sudan | Sudan |
| Syria | Tanzania | Thailand |
| Togo | Tunisia | Uganda |
| Uruguay | Uzbekistan | Yemen |
Coverage of the policy also identified Colombia, Russia, Egypt, Brazil, Belarus, Moldova, Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Morocco, Pakistan and Nigeria among the affected countries. The State Department’s designation did not include India.
The judge said consular officers must retain individual authority
The legal dispute centered on the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiffs relied on 8 U.S.C. § 1104(a), which they said prevents the secretary from controlling visa-granting or refusal decisions assigned to individual consular officers.
The judge agreed that the department could not require individualized review and then dictate the result in advance. He wrote that the policy “plainly nullifies discretionary authority” Congress assigned to consular officers.
The plaintiffs also argued that the department adopted the measure without the notice-and-comment process required under the Administrative Procedure Act. They described the policy as “arbitrary and capricious.”
Edward Ramos, a partner at Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A. who represented Gomes, said the court had recognized the limits on the department’s authority.
“We are pleased the Court recognized that the State Department cannot require individualized review and then dictate refusal regardless of the result.”
The department had justified the freeze by identifying nationals of the designated countries as being at “high risk” of becoming a public charge. The measure formed part of the second Trump administration’s effort to restrict legal immigration.
The freeze could have reduced legal immigration by 33%
Estimates cited in the research suggested the policy could reduce overall legal immigration to the United States by approximately 33%. Nationals of the designated countries represented roughly 8% of the total U.S. healthcare workforce.
Those figures describe projected reach rather than a final government count of people denied visas. The policy’s main targets were immigrant visa applicants, including relatives seeking family-based visas and some workers pursuing employment-based green cards.
The research also described the potential affected population as hundreds of thousands of people. Gomes’s case supplied the test for the broader challenge, but his order did not immediately provide universal relief.
The department spokesperson declined to comment directly on the litigation. The spokesperson said the administration was “upholding the highest standards of screening and vetting of visa applicants.”
Rubio’s internal cable or statement at the policy’s introduction said:
“The Department will no longer be complicit in these abuses [of the immigration system]. Instead, we will protect our borders and defend the value of American citizenship.”
Other lawsuits could determine whether relief expands
The decision created a legal precedent for applicants from the 75 countries, while leaving the nationwide status of the freeze unresolved. Other applicants may need separate litigation or a class action to obtain relief beyond the named plaintiffs.
Similar challenges remained pending in the Southern District of New York as of August 2026, including CLINIC v. Rubio. The administration was expected to appeal the decision to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Legal experts advised applicants from the designated countries to cite De Moura Gomes v. Rubio when seeking individualized adjudication at consular posts. That approach does not itself guarantee visa issuance.
The immediate order remains tied to Gomes and his family. The department must adjudicate their case within 60 days, while the broader fight over consular authority proceeds in federal court.
