Trump Benefit Freeze for Travel Ban Countries Found Unlawful (2)

A federal court in Rhode Island set aside a Trump administration policy freezing work permits, green cards, and other benefits for applicants from roughly 40 countries subject to travel bans, handing a win to immigration advocates and labor unions.

That US Citizenship and Immigration Services policy has blocked work permits and green cards for people from countries deemed “high risk” by the government including Iran, Nigeria, and Venezuela—even though they were already present in the US. That’s led many to lose jobs and put their lawful status in jeopardy as the benefits pause has continued.

The policy didn’t “simply place a hold on adjudications,” Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr., an Obama appointee to the District of Rhode Island, found.

“More fundamentally, the Challenged Policies placed the lives of countless individuals on hold—solely by virtue of their countries of birth. Over six months later, many of those individuals remain without work, without legal status, and without any meaningful ability to plan for their futures,” he wrote in an opinion Friday, finding the policy should be set aside because it violated the Administrative Procedure Act.

As the Trump administration has pursued a larger mass deportation program, USCIS policies targeting people from “travel ban” countries exemplified a slew of measures disrupting legal immigration programs. The Department of Homeland Security has also sought to dismantle humanitarian protections, and slowed or restricted approval of employment authorization documents for a broad range of migrants.

The State Department, meanwhile, has blocked green cards for 75 countries, citing concerns of reliance on government benefits.

The benefits freeze was framed as a temporary measure while DHS overhauls screening procedures after two National Guard members in Washington, DC were shot last year. But the policy has remained largely unchanged since two memos were issued by USCIS Director Joseph Edlow in December and at the beginning of this year.

‘Devastating’ Consequences

Along with the benefits pause, the first Edlow memo halted processing of all asylum claims. It also directed that previous decisions granting benefits to people from travel ban countries be reviewed again and added “country-specific factors” like those outlined in White House travel bans as circumstances to consider in benefit decisions.

Dozens of lawsuits have challenged the USCIS benefits policy in federal district courts claiming the agency can’t withhold decisions on the basis of applicants’ countries of origin. Several have already secured preliminary court wins, although relief has been limited to plaintiffs in individual cases.

The Trump administration lifted the freeze on asylum claims in March—although only for people not from travel ban nations. And last month, amid mounting litigation and lobbying pressure from medical organizations, USCIS quietly relaxed the benefits freeze for physicians.

In addition to the benefits hold, McConnell’s nationwide order vacated and set aside the global asylum hold policy, the re-review of policy for previously approved benefits, and the “country-specific factors” policy.

He rejected national security justifications offered by the government and found that USCIS hadn’t offered a reasoned explanation for linking presidential proclamations denying entry to the US to decisions on benefit requests for people already in the US.

McConnell also found evidence—including derogatory statements about immigrants by administration officials after the National Guard shooting—of pretextual reasons behind the policies.

“The Government effectively invites the Court to shut its eyes and ignore the strong evidence of anti-immigrant animus before it,” he wrote. “Doing so would require profound naiveté on the Court’s part.”

McConnell declined a request from plaintiffs to grant a permanent injunction on the policies, finding it wasn’t necessary.

The ruling reaffirms the principle that the government can’t shut down lawful immigration pathways or discriminate against people based on where they come from, said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which represented plaintiffs.

“These unlawful policies caused enormous harm to families, workers, asylum seekers, and communities across the country who were left in limbo, unable to work, access protections, or move forward with their lives,” she said in a statement. “We are pleased that the court recognized the devastating human consequences of these policies. Our communities deserve a fair process governed by law, not political targeting rooted in fear and discrimination.”

The administration’s critics on the left have been “running the same gambit with so called ‘animus’ claims since 2017,” James Percival, general counsel for DHS, said in a statement.

“It is sabotage dressed in legal clothing,” he said.

Plaintiffs in the Rhode Island case were also represented by Muslim Advocates, Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, South Asian American Justice Collaborative, and DeLuca, Weizenbaum, Barry & Revens Ltd.

The case is Dorcas Int’l Inst. of Rhode Island v. USCIS, D.R.I., No. 1:26-cv-00132, order issued 6/5/26.