Visa Lottery Winners’ Travel Ban Suit Scores Partial Victory (1)

A Washington, DC, federal judge ordered the State Department to process visa applications for a group of immigrants blocked from entering the US by the Trump administration’s travel ban on 19 countries.

Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan did not find the travel ban itself unlawful and took no position on whether the agency must issue visas to plaintiffs. But she said it cannot rely on the ban to refuse to adjudicate applications for winners of the Diversity Visa lottery who stand to lose their visas if not issued by the end of September.

“It may well be that, because of circumstances outside of their control, they will ultimately be unable to enter the United States even if they get a visa,” Sooknanan of the US District Court for the District of Columbia wrote in an order Thursday. “But all the Plaintiffs are asking for is an answer on their applications, and one that is given lawfully.”

Fifty-five plaintiffs selected in the diversity visa lottery and their family members challenged the ban, arguing in a July complaint that the State Department violated the Administrative Procedure Act by not adjudicating their visa applications. Their suit also claimed violation of separation of powers and the nondelegation doctrine.

The diversity visa program allows applicants from countries with low rates of US immigration to apply for a green card if they’re selected through a randomized lottery. The program is limited to 55,000 visas but millions enter the lottery each year.

The plaintiffs include diversity visa winners from Afghanistan, Burma, Togo, Somalia, Iran, and other countries fully or partial covered by the June travel ban. The ban caused some lottery winners to lose employment opportunities, the plaintiffs say. Their visas will be forfeited if they aren’t issued by the end of the fiscal year Sept. 30.

Attorneys for the State Department said in oral arguments this month that plaintiffs, even if approved for a visa, would still be denied entry to the US under the ban. And they argued the plaintiffs’ claims couldn’t be heard by the court because consular decisions aren’t subject to judicial review.

But the ban might be modified or rescinded while their visas are still valid, Sooknanan said. And while a doctrine of consular nonreviewability does block any relief for plaintiffs who were already denied visas, she found the “picture is not nearly so clear” for those placed in administrative processing—a term for visa applications that must undergo extra scrutiny before a final decision is reached.

Because a final yes-or-no decision has yet to come for those plaintiffs, the doctrine doesn’t put their claims beyond review, Sooknanan found.

A June 4 presidential proclamation justified the entry ban by citing high visa overstay rates or refusals by designated countries to cooperate with deportations. The administration will have the option to add or remove countries from the ban 90 days after the proclamation was issued.

“Now, let’s hope when it’s time for the Trump administration to review the ban at the 90-day mark they do that in good faith, and it leads to a less restrictive ban that will allow plaintiffs with issued immigrant visas to immigrate the US and start their lives here,” Curtis Morrison, counsel for the plaintiffs, said in a statement.

The decision is an example of “wrongful judicial overreach” curtailing administration efforts to keep the US safe, said State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott.

“We will continue to relentlessly work to ensure the President of the United States is able to use every tool he has available, including visas, to finally bring oversight to who we allow to visit our country,” he said in a statement.

Plaintiffs are represented by Red Eagle Law LC. The State Department is represented by the Department of Justice.

The case is Thein v. Trump, D.D.C., No. 1:25-cv-02369, preliminary injunction granted in part 8/21/25.