Judge Denies Trump Bid to Revive 39-Country Immigration Curbs
Updated
Updated · The Boston Globe · Jul 15
Judge Denies Trump Bid to Revive 39-Country Immigration Curbs
3 articles · Updated · The Boston Globe · Jul 15
Summary
A Rhode Island federal judge refused to pause his June 5 order blocking Trump-era USCIS policies that had halted asylum, work permits and citizenship processing for immigrants from 39 countries.
In a 28-page ruling, Judge John J. McConnell Jr. said the administration showed no evidence of irreparable harm, noting USCIS had already complied for weeks while immigrants had lost jobs, legal status and planning certainty.
McConnell also challenged the legal basis for nationality-based restrictions, saying the Immigration and Nationality Act gives USCIS no authority to categorically delay benefits by national origin and bars such discrimination.
The judge questioned the credibility of the government's national-security case after a USCIS affidavit cited vetting problems in Ethiopia, Liberia and Pakistan, none of which were on the 39-country list.
The ruling keeps relief in place for affected immigrants as the administration pursues its appeal in the First Circuit, with some applicants already being told their citizenship oaths can proceed.
A federal court blocked the immigration halt, so why are thousands of applications still not being processed?
With courts rejecting national security claims, what is the new legal line for immigration policy?
Federal Court Strikes Down Trump’s 39-Country Immigration Ban: Immediate Impact, Human Cost, and Legal Precedent
Overview
In July 2026, U.S. District Chief Judge John McConnell Jr. issued a landmark ruling that struck down Trump administration immigration restrictions, specifically targeting policies that had suspended benefits for nationals from 39 countries. The court found these measures to be openly discriminatory, blocking enforcement and requiring that immigration benefits for those affected be processed without the previous restrictions. The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately comment, while the Trump administration began considering legal options in response. This decision marked a significant step toward restoring fair treatment in the immigration system and highlighted the ongoing tension between executive actions and judicial oversight.