A federal judge has struck down a set of Trump administration immigration restrictions that had halted or complicated decisions on asylum claims, work permits, green cards and citizenship applications for immigrants from 39 countries, ruling that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services acted unlawfully and exceeded its authority.

The decision, issued by Chief U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. in Rhode Island, vacated four USCIS policies that plaintiffs said placed large categories of applicants in indefinite legal uncertainty because of their countries of birth. The court’s order applies to the Global Asylum Hold Policy, the Benefits Hold Policy, the Comprehensive Re-Review Policy and the Country-Specific Factors Policy.

The ruling came in Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS, a case brought by immigrant-serving organizations and unions against USCIS, the Department of Homeland Security and senior officials. Plaintiffs listed in the court order include Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island, Refugee Dream Center, Service Employees International Union, the United Auto Workers, African Communities Together, the Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts, Partnership for the Advancement of New Americans and American Gateways.

McConnell’s order concluded that the challenged policies were unlawful and must be “vacated and set aside.” The court denied the plaintiffs’ request for a permanent injunction but also denied the government’s motion to dismiss constitutional claims without prejudice. The practical effect is that the challenged policies no longer stand, though the government may still consider further litigation steps.

The policies had been aimed at people from countries covered by full or partial travel restrictions and broader “high-risk” designations. Reuters reported that the affected countries included Afghanistan, Iran, Haiti, Somalia, Venezuela and Syria among the nations subject to full travel bans, with the administration defending the restrictions on vetting and national security grounds.

According to AP, the restrictions were adopted after the shooting of two National Guard members and made it harder for immigrants from dozens of African, Asian, Latin American and Middle Eastern countries to enter or remain in the United States. The case focused not on consular visa issuance alone, but on USCIS adjudications for people seeking decisions on benefits already available under federal immigration law.

The ruling sharply criticized USCIS for imposing broad holds without the legal foundation or reasoned explanation required by federal law. McConnell wrote that the agency claimed authority it did not have, failed to address the reliance interests of applicants and used national security rationales in a way the court found unsupported. The court said the policies left people waiting for months for decisions on applications that USCIS otherwise had a duty to adjudicate.

At issue were several categories of immigration benefits. The global asylum hold affected asylum adjudications; the benefits hold paused pending requests involving nationals of travel-ban countries; the comprehensive re-review policy reopened scrutiny of previously approved benefits for certain people; and the country-specific factors policy directed officers to treat nationality as a factor in adjudication. Together, immigrant advocates argued, the policies created a sweeping barrier to lawful immigration pathways.

The court’s reasoning rested heavily on administrative law. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, federal agencies must explain major policy decisions, stay within statutory authority and avoid arbitrary or capricious action. McConnell found that USCIS had not adequately connected the broad adjudication pauses to the immigration statutes it cited, and had not justified why pending applications from large national groups should be held without individualized determinations.

The decision also underscored the difference between entry restrictions at the border or consular stage and benefit adjudications for people already pursuing immigration processes. The court found that presidential travel proclamations and security concerns did not automatically give USCIS authority to suspend adjudications across unrelated benefit categories. That distinction matters for immigrants already living in the United States, including asylum seekers awaiting work authorization and applicants pursuing adjustment of status or naturalization.

Immigrant rights groups welcomed the ruling as a major victory. Muslim Advocates said the challenged policies had left immigrants in legal uncertainty by suspending asylum adjudications, freezing applications for people from travel-ban countries, reopening previously approved cases and directing officers to weigh nationality negatively. Democracy Forward, which was involved in the litigation, described the ruling as a rejection of policies targeting immigrants based on country of origin.

The administration’s immediate response was limited in the first wave of reporting. Reuters reported that the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately comment. The government had defended the restrictions as part of a national security framework, arguing that heightened vetting was needed after high-profile violence involving an Afghan national who had entered the United States years earlier and later received asylum. The court did not accept the administration’s explanation as sufficient to sustain the challenged policies.

For affected applicants, the ruling could allow pending cases to resume moving through USCIS channels, though the pace of processing remains uncertain. USCIS backlogs, officer guidance, possible government appeals and case-specific issues could all affect how quickly decisions are issued. The order does not guarantee approval of any immigration benefit. It requires that the vacated policies not be used as blanket barriers to adjudication.

The decision also fits into a broader pattern of litigation over the administration’s immigration program. Federal courts have been asked to assess the legality of enforcement actions, asylum restrictions, travel limits and benefit-processing policies. This case is especially consequential because it concerns the machinery of immigration adjudication itself: whether an agency can put entire categories of pending cases on hold based on nationality and executive-branch security judgments.

Employers, universities, legal aid groups and immigrant families are likely to watch implementation closely. Work authorization delays can affect employment and household income; green card delays can affect family stability and long-term planning; citizenship delays can affect voting eligibility and civic participation. For asylum applicants, unresolved status can prolong uncertainty over protection claims and the ability to build a stable life in the United States.

The ruling does not end the national debate over immigration screening or executive power. It does, however, set a clear judicial limit on USCIS: national security concerns must be tied to lawful authority and reasoned decision-making, and the agency cannot indefinitely withhold immigration decisions from applicants solely because they come from disfavored countries. Unless the order is stayed or reversed, the challenged USCIS policies are no longer operative.