Trump Green Card Freeze Lawsuit has been filed in a US federal court challenging the decision to pause green card processing for citizens of 75 countries. The case argues that the policy is unlawful, discriminatory, and exceeds executive authority under immigration law.
What the Policy Does
Under the policy, immigrant visa processing — including “green card” issuance — for applicants from 75 named countries was indefinitely paused beginning January 21, 2026. The suspension impacts permanent residency paths for spouses, children, parents, and employment-based immigrants but does not affect temporary or non-immigrant visas such as tourist, student, or temporary work visas.
The government justified the move as a “pause” to review how consular officers screen applicants who might rely on government benefits (“public charge” concerns). Critics say this approach transforms longstanding individualized assessments into a broad categorical ban based on nationality.
Read More: US Reduces Tariffs for India After Trump–PM Modi Talks
Grounds of the Lawsuit
The lawsuit, filed in a federal court in Manhattan, argues that the freeze violates several key U.S. laws:
-
It unlawfully alters immigration standards without required administrative procedures.
-
It violates anti-discrimination provisions by imposing restrictions on entire nationalities rather than individuals.
-
It goes beyond the authority granted under immigration statutes and the Constitution.
Plaintiffs include U.S. citizens separated from family members and foreign nationals whose green card applications were already approved but now blocked due to the suspension.
Plaintiffs’ Claims and Experiences
Several individuals named in the complaint highlight the human impact of the policy:
-
A Colombian physician with an approved employment-based immigrant visa is unable to obtain entry due to his country’s inclusion on the list.
-
U.S. citizens seeking to reunite with spouses and children have been forced to wait indefinitely as visa processing remains halted.
The complaint contends that many applicants meet all legal requirements but are still barred solely because of their nationality.
Legal Arguments Against the Policy
Legal advocates say the policy improperly uses “public charge” concerns to justify a sweeping halt in immigrant visa issuance. Historically, public charge determinations are made on a case-by-case basis, considering an individual’s finances, health, and support network. The lawsuit argues that applying this concept categorically to entire nationalities exceeds statutory authority and introduces unlawful discrimination.
Government’s Position
The State Department defends the pause as a temporary measure to enhance vetting and screening procedures, stating that it helps prevent fraud, reduces strain on government resources, and ensures that new immigrants are financially self-sufficient. Officials say the policy does not affect tourist, student, work, or other temporary visas.
Broader Context and Implications
The immigration pause is part of a wider set of restrictive measures affecting legal immigration pathways. Critics say it represents one of the most sweeping restrictions on immigrant visas in recent U.S. history and could have long-term effects on family unification and the economy, including labor shortages in key sectors.
Legal experts say the outcome of the lawsuit could shape immigration policy for years, especially if courts find the administration overstepped legal boundaries in imposing nationality-based limits.
