The response came after a federal judge rebuked officials for failing to immediately comply with the order he issued last week.
Listen
· 3:50 min
An immigration court in New York in May. More than a million applications for asylum and immigration had ground to a halt under Trump administration policies. Credit... Madison Swart for The New York Times
June 12, 2026
The Trump administration said on Friday that it would comply with a court order to restart processing asylum and other immigration applications filed by a broad swath of people who had been left in legal limbo for months.
The move comes after a federal judge in Rhode Island last week struck down a suite of policies imposed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, a major blow to the administration’s expanding efforts to restrict legal immigration . The policies included a global hold on asylum applications filed with the agency and a freeze on immigration applications filed by people from 39 countries, largely in Africa and the Middle East, that are subject to President Trump’s travel ban.
More than a million applications had ground to a halt as a result, preventing many people from obtaining green cards, citizenship and other immigration benefits. The halt also disrupted people’s ability to legally work and left them waiting indefinitely for decisions on their applications.
In a court filing on Friday, Angelica Alfonso-Royals, the deputy director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, said the agency instructed employees to treat the policies “as if they are no longer in effect.” The agency also said in a memo posted on its website that it “strongly disagrees with the court’s order” but that it would “follow its terms pending possible further judicial review.”
As of Friday evening, it was unclear whether the agency had restarted making immigration application decisions. Also on Friday, the administration filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit seeking to pause the decision.
The response came after Judge John J. McConnell Jr. rebuked the Trump administration for failing to immediately comply with the order he issued last week.
The Trump administration argued in a filing on Tuesday that the initial order by Judge McConnell, an Obama appointee, was preliminary and therefore had not “become effective,” indicating that the department had yet to resume making application decisions.
In response, Judge McConnell quickly entered his judgment on Thursday, ordering the government in blunt terms not to stall any further.
“There is no excuse this time,” he wrote. “The government has an obligation to immediately comply with this order.”
Judge McConnell gave the Trump administration until Friday evening to file an update “advising the court as to what specific steps it has taken to comply.”
Democracy Forward, the legal organization representing the assorted unions and immigration aid groups, had accused the government of playing procedural games to deliberately dodge last week’s court order .
“The Trump-Vance administration’s cruel immigration policies have been about chaos, confusion and inefficiency, and we are proud to challenge these unlawful measures and to have secured a court order blocking the policies,” Skye Perryman, the organization’s president, said in a statement. “The federal government cannot shut down lawful immigration pathways or discriminate against people based on where they come from.”
The policies at the center of the case were issued in November after the authorities said an Afghan national had shot two National Guard members in Washington. The man, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, has pleaded not guilty .
In his searing 135-page opinion last week, Judge McConnell wrote that the policies effectively made it impossible for many people to remain in the country and that they were improperly fueled by “anti-immigration sentiments.”
Madeleine Ngo covers immigration and economic policy for The Times.
Zach Montague is a Times reporter covering the federal courts, including the legal disputes over the Trump administration’s agenda.
Read the full article at The New York Times (US) →📄Source document: Federal Judge→20 reports
The HillIndependentCenter5 days agoA federal judge has recused herself from a voting rights lawsuit involving the Department of Justice after it was revealed she attended a campaign event for Fani Willis, the district attorney who prosecuted former President Donald Trump following the 2020 election.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the facts neutrally without apparent ideological framing. It reports on the judge's recusal due to potential conflict of interest without taking a stance on the broader legal issues or political implications.
Official sources cited
- government U.S. District Judge Eleanor Ross
ReasonIndependentCenter5 days agoThe article discusses Judge Amy Coney Barrett's recusal from the case United States v. Raffensperger, which involves the Department of Justice seeking Georgia election records. The Department of Justice requested her recusal due to her past association with Fani Willis, the former district attorney involved in the prosecution of former President Donald Trump for election fraud. Judge Ross ultimately decided to recuse herself, citing potential conflicts of interest.
Bias read (Center): The article provides a balanced account of the situation without overtly favoring any side. It outlines the reasons behind Judge Ross's recusal and includes quotes from both the Department of Justice and Judge Ross herself. There is no clear indication of biased language or selective sourcing.
CBS News (US)IndependentCenter7 days agoA federal judge has overturned the Trump administration's $100,000 fee for new H-1B visas, which was designed to deter foreign workers from taking American jobs. Some business owners argue that the U.S. economy relies on skilled foreign labor.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced view by mentioning both the judicial action against the visa fee and the perspective of business owners who rely on foreign workers. There is no overtly biased language, one-sided sourcing, or emphasis on one side over the other.
The Washington TimesIndependentLeft8 days agoA federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to reverse changes made to National Park Service sites under an executive order that aimed to prevent the display of content deemed to 'inappropriately disparage Americans past or living.'
Bias read (Left): The article frames the executive order as requiring the removal of content that 'disparages Americans,' which implies a critique of policies that restrict expression or historical representation. The use of terms like 'disparaged' and the emphasis on restoring changes suggest a perspective aligned反对
ABC News (US)IndependentCenter8 days agoA federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to restore changes made to national park sites under an executive order aimed at removing what was described as 'inappropriate content.'
Bias read (Center): The article presents a factual summary of a court ruling without overtly favoring either side. It does not include subjective language or emphasize particular viewpoints.
The New York Times (US)Independent🔒Center8 days agoThe Trump administration announced it would restart asylum and immigration processing following criticism from a federal judge who reprimanded officials for not promptly complying with an earlier court order.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a factual statement without overtly biased language or framing. It reports on the administration's response to judicial action without taking a stance on the policy itself or its implications.
Breitbart NewsIndependentRight8 days agoA federal judge has extended a block on the Trump administration's 'anti-weaponization fund' for citizens who claimed former President Joe Biden's administration targeted them.
Bias read (Right): The headline uses the term 'anti-weaponization fund,' which implies a negative characterization of the Biden administration's actions. The framing suggests that the fund was created in response to perceived targeting by Biden's administration, aligning with a critical perspective of the current U.S.
Bloomberg NewsParty-aligned🔒Center9 days agoA federal judge in Virginia has allowed a lawsuit to continue against the Trump administration's proposed $1.8 billion fund aimed at compensating individuals allegedly harmed by political 'weaponization,' even after U.S. officials stated the initiative would not proceed.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a factual summary of a court decision without overtly favoring any political side. It reports on judicial action regarding a policy proposal without using loaded language or emphasizing one perspective over another.
Official sources cited
- court Federal Judge in Virginia
Bloomberg NewsParty-aligned🔒Center10 days ago Judge Declines Action on ‘Weaponization’ Fund While Warning DOJA federal judge in Washington has declined to take action on a $1.8 billion fund intended for alleged political 'weaponization' victims, citing assurances from the U.S. government that the plan will not proceed.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the judge’s decision without overtly favoring either side. It notes the judge's agreement with the Trump administration but also references the government's assurance that the plan would not move forward, suggesting a balanced presentation of the situation.
Official sources cited
- court Federal Judge in Washington
- government U.S. Government Assurances
The Washington TimesIndependentRight10 days ago Judge rejects watchdog's bid to block Trump administration's $1.8B 'anti-weaponization' fundA federal judge rejected a government watchdog's request to block the Trump administration's proposed $1.776 billion 'anti-weaponization' fund, though the judge warned the administration not to mislead the court. The administration argued the lawsuit was moot after the acting Attorney General stated the fund would be scrapped. The judge will consider a separate request for a preliminary injunction. Another judge had previously blocked the fund but the order is set to expire.
Bias read (Right): The article uses terms like 'watchdog,' which often carry a negative connotation implying overreach, and frames the administration's actions as legitimate despite the controversy. It also highlights the judge's conservative background (nominated by George W. Bush) and emphasizes the administration's
Official sources cited
- court U.S. District Judge Richard Leon
- government Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche
- court U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema
The New York Times (US)Independent🔒Center11 days ago Watchdog Group Skeptical of Vows to End Trump Administration’s $1.8 Billion FundA watchdog group and its lawyers expressed skepticism about assurances from department officials regarding discontinuation of a $1.8 billion Trump Administration fund. While officials stated the fund would not move forward, the lawyers noted these officials declined to provide guarantees that this commitment would be maintained in the future.
Bias read (Center): The framing emphasizes the watchdog group's skepticism and officials' refusal to commit firmly, portraying the Trump Administration's assurances as weak or evasive rather than decisive.
Official sources cited
- organisation Watchdog Group
The New York Times (US)Independent🔒Left12 days ago Watchdog Group Skeptical of Vows to End Trump Administration’s $1.8 Billion FundCitizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has requested a federal judge to issue a formal order preventing the establishment of a $1.8 billion fund previously associated with the Trump administration.
Bias read (Left): The article references a watchdog group known for advocating against policies linked to the Trump administration, suggesting a critical stance toward the fund. While the article does not explicitly express opinion, the framing emphasizes skepticism toward the fund, which aligns with a left-leaning视角
Official sources cited
- organisation Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
NPR NewsIndependentCenter12 days agoA federal judge ruled against the Trump administration's implementation of a $100,000 fee for new H-1B visas, which was introduced with the stated purpose of preventing foreign workers from taking American jobs.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the ruling and the administration's rationale without overtly favoring either side. It does not include quotes or perspectives that would indicate a clear ideological slant.
Official sources cited
- court Federal judge ruling
Associated PressIndependentCenter12 days agoA federal judge has ruled against a $100,000 fee imposed by former President Donald Trump on new H-1B visas, which are used by foreign workers in specialty occupations.
Bias read (Center): The article reports on a judicial decision without apparent ideological framing. It does not include commentary, opinion, or biased language, focusing solely on the legal outcome.
Official sources cited
- court Federal judge ruling
USA TodayParty-alignedCenter12 days agoA judge has ruled against Trump's proposed $100,000 fee for new H-1B visas.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a factual report on a judicial decision without apparent ideological framing, word-choice, or emphasis that suggests a particular political leaning. It does not include quotes or perspectives that would indicate a slant.
Official sources cited
- court Judicial ruling on H-1B visa fee
CBS News (US)IndependentCenter12 days ago Judge voids Trump's $100,000 fee for new H-1B visasA federal judge has invalidated President Trump's policy imposing a $100,000 fee on new H-1B visas for high-skilled foreign workers, ruling it unlawful. The decision was made by U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, who found that the Trump administration exceeded its authority by implementing the fee without congressional approval. The Department of Homeland Security criticized the ruling as 'judicial activism' and defended the policy as aimed at protecting the U.S. workforce.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the court's decision and the opposing views from the Department of Homeland Security without overtly favoring either side. It includes direct quotes from both the judge and the department, providing balanced perspectives on the legal challenge and the administration's response.
Official sources cited
- court Judge Leo Sorokin's Decision
- government Department of Homeland Security Statement
The New York Times (US)Independent🔒Center12 days ago Judge Throws Out Trump Administration’s Policy Imposing $100,000 Fees for H-1B VisasA judge has ruled against the Trump administration's policy that imposed a $100,000 fee for H-1B visa petitions, voiding it entirely.
Bias read (Center): The article reports on a judicial decision without apparent ideological framing. It does not include commentary, quotes, or sourcing that suggest a particular political leaning. The summary of the ruling is presented neutrally.
The HillIndependentLeft13 days ago Judge blocks $100k fee for H-1B visas imposed by TrumpA federal judge blocked a $100,000 fee for H-1B visa applications imposed by the Trump administration, ruling that the fee exceeded executive authority and encroached on congressional powers related to immigration policy and taxation. The decision was made by U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, who ruled that the fee constituted a tax regardless of its name. The challenge was brought by a group of Democratic-led states, including California and Massachusetts, arguing that the fee unfairly burdened businesses and workers.
Bias read (Left): The article frames the removal of the Trump-era H-1B visa fee as a positive outcome, emphasizing the court's ruling against the Trump administration's 'unlawful and costly' tax. It highlights the involvement of Democratic-led states and quotes their attorneys general in support of the decision, with
Official sources cited
- court U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin
- government California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D)
- government Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell (D)
The Daily WireIndependentLeft13 days agoA federal judge in Massachusetts blocked President Donald Trump's attempt to impose a $100,000 fee on H-1B visa applications, ruling it unconstitutional and in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The judge found that the policy exceeded the executive branch's authority to set fees and encroached on Congress's power to tax. The decision came after legal action from 20 Democrat-led states. The Trump administration plans to appeal the ruling. The H-1B visa program allows U.S. employers to hire skilled foreign workers temporarily, with tech and finance industries relying heavily on such
Bias read (Left): The article frames the judge's decision as a victory for the 20 Democrat-led states challenging the policy, emphasizing the ruling's alignment with congressional authority over taxation and the Administrative Procedure Act. It highlights the potential impact of the policy on foreign STEM workers and
Official sources cited
- court U.S. District Court in Massachusetts
- press release The Guardian
Associated PressIndependentCenter16 days ago A federal judge strikes down Trump administration immigration policy affecting 39 countriesA federal judge has ruled against a Trump administration immigration policy that affected 39 countries.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a factual report on a judicial decision without apparent ideological framing, word-choice, or emphasis that suggests a particular political leaning. It does not include quotes, opinions, or contextual elements that would indicate a slant.
Official sources cited
- court Federal court ruling
United States