75-Country Visa Ban: Appeals Court Keeps Ban Blocked

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. New visa applications cannot be refused under this rule. On October 19, 2026, an appeals court (the Second Circuit Court of Appeals) said the rule stays blocked for now. But it also paused, for now, the part of the decision that ordered the State Department to look again at visas that were already refused because of this rule.

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. On November 6, 2026, they changed their complaint to also challenge other State Department “public charge” rules for immigrant visas. The government disagrees and has appealed (asked a higher court to review the decision).

CLINIC v. Rubio status today

Status as of November 6, 2026 (last change: November 6, 2026): The 75-country rule is still blocked. On September 28, 2026, the government asked a higher court (the Second Circuit Court of Appeals) to pause the decision while it appeals. On October 19, 2026, one judge of that court gave a short-term answer until a group of three judges decides:

The rule stays blocked. The appeals court did not pause the part of the decision that struck down the rule. New visa applications cannot be refused under this rule.
Second look at refused visas is paused for now. The appeals court temporarily paused (stopped for now) the part of the decision that ordered the State Department to look again at each visa that was refused only because of the 75-country rule.

Three judges of the appeals court will now decide the government’s full request. They have not decided yet.

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. On October 19, 2026, the government told the judge about the appeals court’s order. It asked her to wait to decide on the proposed order until the three appeals judges decide. Later on October 19, the groups that sued asked the judge to say no to that request and to go ahead with their proposed order. On October 20, 2026, the judge let the government file one more short answer by 5:00 p.m. on October 23, 2026. The judge told the government to explain what will happen to visas that were refused because of the 75-country rule between January 14 and August 21, 2026, and whether those visa applications will be looked at again now that the rule is no longer in effect. On October 23, 2026, the government filed that answer. It said the State Department is still looking again at these refused visas under its own instructions to embassies from September 2026, and that those instructions have not changed. But it said that, for now, the court cannot force the State Department to do this or set deadlines for it, because the appeals court paused that part of the decision. It again asked the judge to wait until the three appeals judges decide. Later on October 23, the groups that sued asked the judge for permission to file a short written response to the government’s answer. The judge has not decided yet.

On November 6, 2026, the groups that sued filed a new, longer version of their complaint (the paper that starts a lawsuit). It is called an “amended and supplemental complaint.” It now also challenges other State Department rules about “public charge” (a person the government thinks will mostly depend on government help to live). These include a November 2025 instruction to embassies and new instructions from August and September 2026. One of the new instructions adds extra manager review of visa cases even after an officer has approved the visa. The court has not decided anything about these new claims. This new complaint does not change the earlier decision: the 75-country rule is still blocked. The separate travel ban (Presidential Proclamation 10998) is still in effect.

What this means for you: For now, the State Department cannot use the 75-country rule. New visa applications cannot be refused under this rule. For now, the court cannot force the State Department to look again at visas that were already refused because of this rule. But on October 23, 2026, the government told the court that the State Department is still looking again at these visa cases on its own, under its own instructions. The embassy may ask for more papers or a new interview. This could change when the three appeals judges decide. If your family member’s immigrant visa was refused, or their visa interview was canceled, because of the 75-country rule, keep every letter and email from the embassy. The separate travel ban (Presidential Proclamation 10998) is still in effect. 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.
October 15, 2026 (Second Circuit): The government filed its reply in support of its emergency stay motion (2d Cir. Dkt. No. 48).
October 19, 2026: Second Circuit Judge Richard J. Sullivan, acting alone, ruled on the government’s request for a temporary (administrative) stay while a three-judge panel considers the stay motion (2d Cir. Dkt. No. 49; certified copy, Dkt. No. 50). The temporary stay was DENIED as to (i) the declaratory judgment and (ii) the judgment vacating the Secretary of State’s immigrant visa suspension policy. It was GRANTED as to the part of the judgment vacating and remanding “any refusal of an immigrant visa that was based solely upon the policy,” citing the doctrine of consular nonreviewability. The stay motion (Dkt. No. 21) was referred to a three-judge panel, which had not ruled as of the evening of October 19. The same day, the government filed a letter in the district court reporting the order and asking Judge Vargas to defer consideration of the plaintiffs’ proposed enforcement order (ECF No. 120) until the panel rules, arguing that the proposed order concerns only the stayed portion of the judgment (ECF No. 126). The district court had not ruled on that request as of the evening of October 19.
October 19, 2026 (later): Plaintiffs filed a letter (ECF No. 127) opposing the government’s request to defer (ECF No. 126). They argue the proposed enforcement order (ECF No. 120) enforces the vacatur of the policy itself, not only the part of the judgment the Second Circuit temporarily stayed, and that it also seeks relief for the individual plaintiffs and the organizations’ members. The letter cites the government’s own declaration (ECF No. 114-1) that only 706 of about 43,000 visas refused solely under the policy had been re-decided since August 21, and that nearly 60% of those were refused again. The district court had not ruled as of the morning of October 20.
October 20, 2026: The government asked for leave to file a reply in support of its request to defer (ECF No. 128). The court granted it (ECF No. 129): the reply, limited to 1,250 words, is due by 5:00 p.m. on October 23, 2026, and must address the government’s position on the effect of the vacatur on visas refused because of the policy between January 14 and August 21, 2026, including whether, under existing regulations and policies, those applications will undergo additional processing or reprocessing now that the policy is no longer in effect. The government filed its reply on October 23, 2026 (ECF No. 132).
October 20, 2026 (later): In a letter the government consented to, the plaintiffs asked to extend their deadline to file an amended complaint from October 23 to November 6, 2026, and both sides asked to move their third joint case status letter from November 6 to November 20, 2026 (ECF No. 130). The government’s deadline to answer the complaint remains on hold.
October 21, 2026: The court granted the request (ECF No. 131): the plaintiffs’ amended complaint is now due November 6, 2026, the government’s deadline to respond to the complaint remains held in abeyance, and the parties’ third joint case letter is due November 20, 2026. This is a scheduling order only; it does not change the status of the policy or the pending stay motion. The government’s reply on the proposed enforcement order (ECF No. 129) is still due by 5:00 p.m. on October 23, 2026.
October 23, 2026: The government filed its reply in support of its request to defer (ECF No. 132). Answering the court’s question, it said yes: under the State Department’s September 10, 2026, cable and September 21 guidance, which State Department counsel confirmed on October 23 remain unchanged, applications previously refused solely under the policy continue to be reviewed and, when appropriate, further processed and adjudicated. Consular officers mark the pause-related section 221(g) refusal as overcome, assess current eligibility, may require additional documents, interviews, security screening, and visa-number availability, and must document any independent basis for a new refusal. The government said this is separate from 22 C.F.R. § 42.81(e), which lets an applicant who presents new evidence within one year of a refusal get reconsideration without a new fee, but does not require the Department to reopen cases on its own. It argued that because the Second Circuit temporarily stayed the part of the judgment vacating and remanding policy-only refusals, the court should not impose the deadlines, twice-weekly sworn reports, and document production in the plaintiffs’ proposed order (ECF No. 120), and again asked the court to defer until the Second Circuit panel rules on the stay motion. No ruling as of the afternoon of October 23, 2026.
October 23, 2026 (later): At 7:34 p.m. ET, the plaintiffs filed a letter motion (ECF No. 133) asking for leave to file a response of no more than 728 words to the government’s October 23 reply (ECF No. 132), saying the reply raised additional arguments about the effect of 22 C.F.R. § 42.81(e) on previously refused visa applications and about the court’s authority to require reporting and document production despite the Second Circuit’s partial administrative stay. The letter states that the proposed response is attached. Not ruled on as of the morning of October 24, 2026; no ruling on the proposed enforcement order (ECF No. 120).
November 6, 2026: As allowed by the October 21 order (ECF No. 131), the plaintiffs filed a 143-page First Amended and Supplemental Complaint (ECF No. 134). Besides the Blanket Visa Ban and Visa Ban Cable (already declared unlawful and vacated on August 21, 2026), it challenges the State Department’s November 6, 2025 Consular Processing Cable on public charge; later public charge directives to consular posts (26 STATE 80666, 26 STATE 86164, 26 STATE 88862 and 26 STATE 89798); and a “Review and Override Policy” (26 STATE 89798 and September 21, 2026 instructions) that, according to the complaint, requires managerial and centralized review of cases in which an applicant overcame a public charge refusal, even after a visa is approved. It asks the court to declare these unlawful, vacate them and stay them under 5 U.S.C. § 705, enjoin them, and order the State Department to resume individualized visa adjudications. Three individual plaintiffs withdrew and eleven new individual plaintiffs joined. The government’s deadline to respond to the complaint remains in abeyance (ECF No. 131). As of November 6, 2026, there is no ruling on the new claims, on the proposed enforcement order (ECF No. 120) or on ECF No. 133, and the Second Circuit panel has 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. On October 19, 2026, a single Second Circuit judge left the vacatur of the policy in effect but temporarily stayed the part of the judgment that vacated and remanded individual refusals based solely on the policy, until a three-judge panel decides the government’s stay motion. So the policy itself remains blocked, but the court-ordered re-review of already-refused visas is on hold for now, and the situation could change again when the panel rules. 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). The Second Circuit’s October 19, 2026 order on the temporary stay is here: Second Circuit order (October 19, 2026, Dkt. No. 50). The plaintiffs’ November 6, 2026 amended complaint is here: First Amended and Supplemental Complaint (ECF No. 134). 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)
C.F.R.: Code of Federal Regulations (written rules made by federal agencies)
U.S.C.: United States Code (the federal laws passed by Congress)
26 STATE [number]: the number the State Department gives a cable (official instruction) it sends to U.S. embassies and consulates in 2026

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.