In the United States, a federal judge has struck down Trump's 75-country travel ban for discrimination.

A federal judge in Manhattan has struck down a policy implemented by the Trump administration that blocked visa applications from citizens of 75 countries, ruling it unlawful and exceeding the authority granted to the Secretary of State, Antony Blinken. The decision, issued by Judge Jeannette Vargas, invalidates a measure introduced in January 2024, which aimed to restrict entry into the United States for individuals who might require public assistance. The judge found the policy discriminatory and inconsistent with immigration law. The policy targeted a majority of the 75 countries, many of which are outside Europe, including regions such as the Caribbean, Sub-Saharan Africa, the Balkans, the Middle East, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia. Several of these nations are U.S. allies, including Jordan, Egypt, and Georgia. The Department of State created its list based on data from the Council of Economic Advisers, identifying countries where more than 30 percent of immigrant families received some form of public assistance. Six U.S. citizens filed the lawsuit, arguing that the ban prevented their relatives in Ghana, Jamaica, Guatemala, and Ethiopia from obtaining visas. Five Colombian applicants seeking work-related visas were also included among the plaintiffs. Vargas, appointed by former President Joe Biden, gave both sides until September 11 to propose how to resolve the remaining aspects of the case. The administration retains the right to appeal the court's decision. Vargas emphasized that decisions regarding potential public burden should not be based solely on nationality. Instead, she ruled that each applicant must be evaluated individually, taking into account factors such as financial status, age, health, professional skills, and family circumstances. She criticized the instructions given to consular officials, stating they effectively made the rejection of applications from affected countries almost automatic. “The result is predetermined,” she wrote, describing the practical effects of the directive. According to the court, the policy did not allow consular officers enough discretion to assess individual cases. Even if an applicant could demonstrate self-sufficiency, their application could still be denied due to their country of origin. Vargas argued this mechanism conflicts with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which prohibits discrimination based on nationality in the issuance of visas. The judicial ruling applies specifically to permanent residency visas, including those for family reunification and employment purposes. Tourist visas and student visas remain unaffected by the decision. This marks a setback for one of the Trump administration’s key immigration control measures, though the legal battle is far from over. The administration can still file an appeal against the federal court’s decision. For thousands awaiting visas to relocate permanently to the United States, the ruling reopens possibilities that had been effectively frozen by the January policy. This is not the first time the Trump administration has faced judicial setbacks. Earlier this month, Trump lost a legal challenge against Harvard University, and in June, the Supreme Court overturned an executive order that would have eliminated birthright citizenship.