75-country visa ban: CLINIC v. Rubio court case update for families

Court Denies Stay: 75-Country Visa Ban Still Blocked (CLINIC v. Rubio)

Disclaimer: We assist with federal U.S. immigration (USCIS) matters only. Attorney Scott A. Maki is licensed in Minnesota only and cannot assist with state-law matters in any other state, including North Dakota.

State Department rule: the 75-country visa pause (blocked by a court)

In January 2026, the U.S. State Department started a new rule. It stopped giving immigrant visas to people from 75 countries. It said these immigrants might need public benefits (called a “public charge” concern). Immigrant visas are how many husbands, wives, children, and parents of U.S. citizens and green card holders move to the United States from abroad.

On August 21, 2026, a federal court struck down this rule. Right now, the State Department cannot use it. The State Department says its embassies have started working on these visa cases again.

But a different travel ban is still in effect. It is called Presidential Proclamation 10998. It started on January 1, 2026. It still stops most immigrant visas for people from 39 countries. This court case did not change that ban. See the list of travel ban countries.

What CLINIC v. Rubio challenges

On February 2, 2026, immigrant groups and families sued the State Department in federal court in New York. The main group is the Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC). They said the law does not allow the government to block immigrant visas because of a person’s nationality (the country they are from). The court agreed with them. The government disagrees and has appealed (asked a higher court to review the decision).

CLINIC v. Rubio status today

Status as of October 16, 2026 (last change: October 16, 2026): The court’s decision is in effect. On September 28, 2026, the government asked a higher court (the Second Circuit Court of Appeals) to pause the decision. That court has not decided yet. On October 8, 2026, the groups that sued filed their written answer against the pause. The government’s reply was due October 15. As of the evening of October 16, the Second Circuit has not ruled.

About 43,000 visa applications were refused because of the 75-country rule. The judge ordered the State Department to look at them again. The judge is now deciding whether to set a deadline for this. She held a hearing in New York on October 14, 2026. On October 15, 2026, the groups that sued gave the judge a proposed order (a written order they ask the judge to sign). It asks that the State Department report to the court twice a week about these visa cases, share its instructions to embassies, and finish the visa cases of the people who sued within 30 days after their papers are complete. The same day, the government asked for time until October 19, 2026, to answer. The judge gave the government less time, until 11:00 a.m. on October 16, 2026. On October 16, the government filed its answer. It asks the judge not to sign the proposed order. It says the order asks for too much. Instead, it offers to give the court two sworn reports (written statements made under oath), 14 days apart, with numbers on the refused visas that have been looked at again and the status of the people who sued. The judge has not decided yet.

What this means for you: If your family member’s immigrant visa was refused, or their visa interview was canceled, because of the 75-country rule, their case may be looked at again. Keep every letter and email from the embassy. Call or contact our office if you have questions.

Full details: CLINIC v. Rubio

The sections below explain the case in more detail, with dates and court filings.

What is the 75-country immigrant visa ban?

In January 2026, the State Department paused immigrant visa processing for people from 75 countries, citing “public charge” concerns. Immigrant visas are how many relatives of U.S. citizens and green card holders come to the United States through a consulate abroad, so the pause affected many family-based cases.

The Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC), African Communities Together, and several affected individuals sued the State Department and Secretary of State Marco Rubio in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:26-cv-00858), before Judge Jeannette A. Vargas.

Is the travel ban (Proclamation 10998) still in effect?

Yes. CLINIC v. Rubio struck down only the 75-country immigrant visa pause. It did not address Presidential Proclamation 10998, the separate travel ban that took effect January 1, 2026. That proclamation is still in effect.

Many countries are on both lists. So for people from a travel ban country, immigrant visas generally remain suspended, even though the 75-country pause is blocked.

  • Full ban (immigrant and all nonimmigrant visas): Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, Burma, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Laos, Libya, Mali, Niger, Republic of the Congo, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, and people traveling on Palestinian Authority documents.
  • Partial ban (immigrant visas and certain nonimmigrant visas, such as visitor and student visas): Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Burundi, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Dominica, Gabon, The Gambia, Malawi, Mauritania, Nigeria, Senegal, Tanzania, Togo, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Venezuela, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

Unlike earlier travel bans, Proclamation 10998 does not exempt spouses, children, or parents of U.S. citizens. Limited exceptions exist, for example for green card holders and dual nationals traveling on a passport from a country not on the list.

The travel ban limits visas issued abroad. Relatives who are already in the United States and eligible to adjust status face different rules, so talk with us about your specific situation.

CLINIC v. Rubio timeline

  • February 2, 2026: Lawsuit filed.
  • August 21, 2026: The court struck down the policy, finding it exceeded the State Department’s authority and violated the Immigration and Nationality Act’s ban on nationality-based discrimination in immigrant visas.
  • Late August 2026: After reports that visa interviews were still being canceled, the plaintiffs asked the court to enforce its order. On August 31, the court granted the request in part and required the government to report on compliance.
  • September 8, 2026: A government status report disclosed that more than 43,000 visa applications had been refused under the policy.
  • September 10, 2026: The government filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (No. 26-2573).
  • September 14, 2026: The government asked the district court to stay its judgment pending appeal.
  • September 17, 2026: The government said it also intends to ask the Second Circuit for a stay.
  • September 23, 2026: The court ordered the plaintiffs to respond to the stay request by September 25.
  • September 24, 2026: The plaintiffs filed their opposition to the government’s stay request (ECF No. 107). They argue the government is unlikely to win on appeal and will not suffer irreparable harm, and they point to government filings in a related case (Medani v. Trump, N.D. Cal.) stating that visas affected by the ruling are still not being issued while new public-charge reviews are rolled out.
  • September 24, 2026: The court issued an order to show cause (ECF No. 108). The judge noted that the government had earlier told the court it would not redo the public-charge analysis for these applicants, but its September 8 report said remanded cases would be reconsidered under current public-charge guidance with no fixed completion date. Finding “some doubt” that the government is complying with the judgment, the court ordered the parties to show cause why an injunction should not issue requiring the government to complete its decisions on the remanded applications by a date certain.
  • September 25, 2026: The court denied the government’s motion to stay the judgment pending appeal (ECF No. 109). The judge found the government’s arguments on appeal “largely insubstantial” and that it had not shown it would suffer irreparable harm without a stay, noting that about 43,000 applicants had already been found eligible for visas before the policy was applied to them.
  • September 28, 2026: In the government’s appeal (2d Cir. No. 26-2573), the Second Circuit clerk issued two routine orders (Dkt. Nos. 11 and 12) stating the appeal will be dismissed on October 13, 2026 unless the government files Forms C and D, the standard appeal information forms. The government filed those forms on September 28 and 29 (Dkt. Nos. 18-20 and 25).
  • September 28, 2026: The government filed an emergency motion in the Second Circuit for a stay pending appeal and an immediate administrative stay (Dkt. No. 21, with supplementary papers at Dkt. No. 22). It argues the district court lacked authority to review the visa refusals and misread the immigration statute, and that reconsidering more than 43,000 refusals would harm the State Department. In the alternative, it asks for a partial stay that would leave the policy itself vacated but pause the order to set aside and reconsider the refusals based only on the policy. As of September 30, the Second Circuit had not ruled.
  • September 29, 2026: The plaintiffs and the government filed a joint letter (ECF No. 110) asking Judge Vargas to set October 5, 2026 at 5 p.m. as the deadline for both sides to respond to the order to show cause about a completion deadline for the remanded visa applications. Judge Vargas granted the request the same day (ECF No. 112), so both sides’ responses are due October 5, 2026 at 5 p.m.
  • September 29, 2026: In a joint status letter (ECF No. 111), the parties told the court the plaintiffs plan to file an amended complaint by October 23, 2026, and proposed submitting a schedule for further proceedings by November 6, 2026.
  • September 30, 2026: Judge Vargas approved (memo-endorsed) the parties’ joint schedule (ECF No. 113): the plaintiffs’ amended complaint is due October 23, 2026, the government’s deadline to respond to it is on hold, and the parties must propose a schedule for further motions by November 6, 2026. The order does not affect the separate order-to-show-cause process or the pending stay request in the Second Circuit.
  • October 5, 2026: The government filed its response to the order to show cause (ECF No. 114). It argues the court should not order the State Department to finish all remanded visa applications by a single date, saying the judgment contains no deadline and a deadline would be new injunctive relief. It filed a declaration from a State Department official stating that all immigrant visa posts have resumed processing applications previously refused under the policy and that hundreds have already been decided, but that the Department cannot give a date by which all of them will be reconsidered. As a fallback, the government asks for, at most, limited sworn status reports.
  • October 5, 2026: The plaintiffs filed their response (ECF No. 115). They argue the government has not implemented the judgment in good faith and ask the court to order decisions within 30 days for the named plaintiffs and the plaintiff organizations’ members and clients, within 60 days (or by another set date) for the roughly 43,000 other affected applicants, and twice-weekly status reports. The judge has not yet ruled.
  • October 6, 2026: Judge Vargas ordered the parties to appear for oral argument on October 14, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. on whether to set a deadline for finishing the re-decisions (ECF No. 116, text-only order). No ruling on that question yet.
  • October 8, 2026: The government filed a letter motion (ECF No. 117) asking Judge Vargas to move the October 14 hearing to October 20 or 21, 2026 (or another date that week), or, if the October 14 date stays, to let government counsel appear remotely. The letter says the hearing overlaps with the Second Circuit stay briefing: according to the letter, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the stay motion in the Second Circuit on October 8, and the government’s reply is due October 15. As of the morning of October 9, the judge had not ruled on the request, and the Second Circuit had not ruled on the stay motion; the plaintiffs’ opposition did not yet appear on the public appeal docket.
  • October 8, 2026: In the Second Circuit, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the government’s emergency stay motion (2d Cir. Dkt. No. 30), with supplementary papers (Dkt. No. 31). These filings appeared on the public appeal docket on October 12. As of October 13, the Second Circuit had not ruled on the stay motion.
  • October 9, 2026: Judge Vargas denied the government’s letter motion (ECF No. 118, text-only order, ruling on ECF No. 117). Both the request to adjourn the October 14 hearing and the alternative request for government counsel to appear remotely were denied. The order requires the government to appear in person on October 14, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 23B, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York. (The order’s text became available on the public docket on October 13.)
  • October 14, 2026: Judge Vargas held oral argument in New York on the order to show cause about a deadline for re-deciding the refused visas (ECF No. 108). Lawyers for both sides appeared. The docket’s minute entry does not record a ruling.
  • October 15, 2026: Plaintiffs filed a proposed order (ECF No. 120) after the hearing. It would require the State Department to file sworn status reports every Tuesday and Friday starting October 16, 2026, with detailed numbers on the remanded visa cases (re-interviews, approvals, refusals and their legal grounds, cases still pending, and staffing by consular post); to produce its guidance cables and public-charge training and review documents; and to finish the individual plaintiffs’ visa cases within 30 days after they are documentarily qualified. The same day, the government filed a letter (ECF No. 121) saying the Court had invited a proposed order on reporting requirements, but that plaintiffs’ version also seeks substantive relief, including adjudication deadlines and document production. The government asked for until October 19, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. to respond and asked the Court to wait to rule until then. As of the evening of October 15, the judge had not ruled, and the Second Circuit’s public docket did not yet show the government’s reply (due October 15) or a ruling on the stay motion.
  • October 15, 2026 (later): Judge Vargas granted in part and denied in part the government’s request for more time (ECF No. 122, text-only order). Instead of October 19, the government may file a brief response to the proposed order by October 16, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. The court reporter also filed the official transcript of the October 14 hearing (ECF Nos. 123, 124); under the court’s usual rules it is not available on PACER until January 13, 2027. As of the morning of October 16, the judge had not ruled on the proposed order, and the Second Circuit had not ruled on the stay motion.
  • October 16, 2026: The government filed its response to the plaintiffs’ proposed order (ECF No. 125). It argues the proposed order goes well beyond the reporting the Court invited at the October 14 hearing: it objects to twice-weekly sworn reports on sixteen categories of information, broad production of internal guidance and public-charge materials (including documents over which it asserts privilege), the 30-day adjudication deadline (which it says the Judgment did not impose), and the requested inquiry into counsel’s August 31 statements. If the Court wants more oversight, the government renews its alternative proposal (ECF No. 114) for two sworn declarations, 14 days apart, reporting the approximate number of Policy-based refusals readjudicated since August 21, 2026, how many were approved or refused under the INA, and the status of each applicant tied to a named plaintiff. As of the evening of October 16, the judge had not ruled on the proposed order, and the Second Circuit had not ruled on the stay motion.

What the visa ban ruling means for your family’s immigrant visa

If a relative’s immigrant visa was refused or their interview was canceled under this policy, their case may be affected by the ruling. But if they are from one of the 39 travel ban countries, Proclamation 10998 may still block their visa. The district court denied a stay, so the ruling remains in effect for now. But the government has asked the Second Circuit for an emergency stay, including a temporary administrative stay, so the situation could change quickly. In its October 5 district court filing, the government said all immigrant visa posts have resumed processing these refused applications and hundreds have been decided, but it would not commit to a completion date, and the judge has not yet set one. The government’s Second Circuit filing also says that reconsidering a refused application may involve requesting updated documents where they have expired and, at the consular officer’s discretion, a new interview.

If your family member is from one of the affected countries, contact our immigration lawyer to talk through your options. For other recent changes, see our immigration news page. Keep copies of any refusal notices or interview cancellation emails.

Read the full case yourself: If you would like to read the court’s full decision yourself, you will find a link here: Opinion and Order, CLINIC v. Rubio (August 21, 2026, ECF No. 83). You can also follow every filing on the district court docket and the Second Circuit appeal docket.

Abbreviations on this page

  • CLINIC: Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (the main group that sued)
  • U.S.: United States
  • 2d Cir.: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the appeals court)
  • S.D.N.Y.: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the trial court)
  • ECF No. / Dkt. No.: the number the court gives each filed document
  • PP 10998: Presidential Proclamation 10998 (the separate travel ban)
  • INA: Immigration and Nationality Act (the main U.S. immigration law)

Related: Applying for a green card inside the U.S.? Read about the new USCIS adjustment of status policy and the AAUP v. Mullin lawsuit.

Sources

This update provides general information, not legal advice. Court cases change quickly; check back for the latest status.