Several lawsuits are currently challenging the travel ban and related visa freezes issued by the Trump administration between mid-2025 and early 2026. Two federal courts have ruled against the government so far: a Rhode Island district court struck down four USCIS policies in June 2026, and the D.C. Circuit affirmed a ruling blocking extra-statutory removals and asylum bars in April 2026. Three other cases challenging State Department visa freezes are pending without rulings. Here is what each case covers and where it stands as of mid-June 2026.
What the Lawsuits Are Actually Challenging
The restrictions come in three distinct layers, and the lawsuits track them separately. The first layer is the entry ban itself: Proclamation 10949, signed June 4, 2025, restricted entry for nationals of 19 countries, and a December 16, 2025 proclamation expanded that list to 39 countries after a November 2025 shooting in Washington, D.C. involving an Afghan national.1The White House. Restricting and Limiting the Entry of Foreign Nationals To Protect the Security of the United States
The second layer is domestic: USCIS internal memos in December 2025 halted asylum adjudications and froze processing of immigration benefits for nationals of the 39 countries.2UC Berkeley International Office. Executive Orders and Immigration The third layer is consular: on January 21, 2026, the State Department froze immigrant visa issuances for nationals of 75 countries, citing “public charge” concerns. That freeze applies to family- and employment-based immigrant visas but not to tourist or student visas.3National Immigration Law Center. Questions and Answers About the 75-Country Visa Ban Lawsuit
None of the pending or decided lawsuits has directly overturned the underlying entry proclamations. What courts have addressed, or are being asked to address, is whether the executive branch can use those proclamations to justify halting adjudications, freezing benefits, or denying visas across entire nationalities.
Dorcas International v. USCIS
Filed March 5, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS was brought by a coalition that included the Service Employees International Union, the United Auto Workers, and African Communities Together. The suit targeted four USCIS policies: an indefinite hold on all affirmative asylum adjudications, a benefits freeze for nationals of the 39 travel-ban countries, a directive to reopen previously approved benefits for nationals of those countries who entered on or after January 20, 2021, and instructions treating nationality as a “significant negative factor” in discretionary decisions.4Democracy Forward. Broad Coalition of Immigrant Service Organizations and Labor Unions File Lawsuit To Block Trump-Vance Administration Policies
On June 5, 2026, Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. issued a 135-page ruling vacating all four policies. He found them “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act, concluded they violated federal laws barring nationality-based discrimination in visa-related decisions, and described them as rooted in “unlawful bigotry” and “strong evidence of anti-immigrant animus.”5American Immigration Council. Court Blocks USCIS Immigration Pause for 39 Countries The court held that while INA §212(f) may authorize the president to restrict entry, it does not authorize USCIS to halt adjudication of immigration benefits for people already in the United States.6Phillips Lytle LLP. Federal Judge Rules the Pause in Adjudication of Immigration Benefits for Citizens of Travel Ban Countries Is Unlawful
USCIS began complying immediately by resuming adjudication of affected cases.7Law Firm 4 Immigrants. USCIS Appeals Dorcas Decision The government filed a notice of appeal to the First Circuit on June 12, 2026 but had not sought an emergency stay as of mid-June, so the district court’s order remains in force while the appeal proceeds.8Wolfsdorf Immigration Law. Dorcas on Appeal: District Court Pauses Its Own Ruling as First Circuit Takes Up the Case The ruling did not touch the entry proclamations themselves, which continue to bar nationals of the 39 countries from admission.
RAICES v. Mullin
The other ruling against the administration came in RAICES v. Mullin, which challenged the use of presidential proclamation authority to bypass normal asylum and removal procedures for people already inside the United States. The D.C. district court certified a class, granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, vacated the implementing guidance, and permanently enjoined the government from using the proclamation to conduct extra-statutory removals or bar asylum applications.9U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. RAICES v. Mullin, No. 25-5243
The D.C. Circuit partially stayed the ruling in August 2025 but affirmed the district court on April 24, 2026. The appellate panel held that federal immigration law does not allow the president to create summary removal procedures outside those prescribed by the INA, and it rejected any categorical suspension of the statutory right to apply for asylum, though it called the asylum question a “close call.”9U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. RAICES v. Mullin, No. 25-5243
CLINIC v. Rubio
The 75-country State Department visa freeze faces two direct challenges. The first, CLINIC v. Rubio (Case No. 1:26-cv-00858), was filed February 2, 2026 in the Southern District of New York by the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, African Communities Together, and 11 individual immigrants and family members.10National Immigration Law Center. CLINIC v. Rubio
The plaintiffs argue the State Department violated the APA and the Immigration and Nationality Act by imposing blanket denials across entire countries rather than the individualized, case-by-case evaluations federal law requires. They also allege the freeze is unconstitutional discrimination based on national origin and race.10National Immigration Law Center. CLINIC v. Rubio The case is pending on cross-motions for partial summary judgment. No ruling has been issued. Democracy Forward, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Legal Aid Society, and the Western Center on Law and Poverty are among the organizations representing plaintiffs.3National Immigration Law Center. Questions and Answers About the 75-Country Visa Ban Lawsuit
Storie v. Trump
The second challenge to the 75-country freeze, Storie v. Trump (Case No. 1:26-cv-00567), was filed February 19, 2026 in the District of Columbia by more than 130 plaintiffs represented by Red Eagle Law. The plaintiffs include U.S. citizens petitioning for family members and foreign nationals with pending employment-based green cards.11Bloomberg Law. Lawsuits Mount Over Trump Green Card Freeze for 75 Countries
The claims mirror those in CLINIC v. Rubio: that the government has a mandatory duty to process visa applications within a reasonable time and that the blanket pause was imposed without a reasoned explanation, violating the APA and separation of powers. No rulings have been reported.12Red Eagle Law. 75-Country Pause Lawsuit Red Eagle Law is also preparing a separate class action for selectees in the DV-2026 diversity visa lottery, affected by both the diversity visa pause that took effect December 23, 2025 and the broader 75-country freeze. That complaint was scheduled to be filed on June 22, 2026.13Red Eagle Law. Group Lawsuit DV-2026
Chikumba v. Department of State
A separate D.C. lawsuit targets the State Department’s halt on visa adjudication for nationals of the 39 travel-ban countries. Chikumba v. Department of State (Case No. 1:26-cv-00332) was filed February 4, 2026 and assigned to Judge Amy Berman Jackson. The plaintiffs argue INA §212(f) authorizes the president to suspend entry but does not empower the State Department to stop processing visa applications entirely, and that the freeze is arbitrary and capricious because it was implemented without notice-and-comment rulemaking and exceeds what the proclamations required.14EIG Law. Lawsuit Challenges DOS Visa Freeze for 39 Travel Ban Countries As of late April 2026, the case remained in its early stages with no substantive motions on the docket.15CourtListener. Chikumba v. U.S. Department of State
The §212(f) Question Running Through Every Case
Nearly every one of these lawsuits turns on the same statute. INA §212(f) allows the president to “suspend the entry” of any class of foreign nationals whose entry is deemed “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” The Supreme Court upheld a broad reading of that power in Trump v. Hawaii (2018) but noted §212(f) cannot be used to “expressly override” other provisions of immigration law.16American Immigration Council. Understanding INA Section 212(f) – President Authority To Suspend Entry of Migrants
Challengers argue that even if the president can bar people from entering, the executive branch cannot use that authority to stop processing applications, freeze benefits for people already inside the country, or impose blanket nationality-based denials that replace the individualized assessments the INA requires. The government contends these measures fall within the president’s national security discretion. Courts have sided with challengers on the domestic-processing question in Dorcas and on the asylum-procedure question in RAICES. The three visa-freeze cases have yet to produce a ruling.
Status Snapshot as of Mid-June 2026
The Dorcas order requiring USCIS to resume domestic processing is in effect, with the government’s appeal now before the First Circuit. The RAICES v. Mullin appellate ruling barring extra-statutory removal procedures and asylum bars stands as binding precedent in the D.C. Circuit. CLINIC v. Rubio, Storie v. Trump, and Chikumba v. DOS are all pending without rulings. The underlying entry proclamations for the 39 countries have not been directly overturned in any decided case, and the next 180-day review of those proclamations is due in mid-2026, when the Secretary of State must recommend whether to continue, modify, or terminate the country-specific restrictions.1The White House. Restricting and Limiting the Entry of Foreign Nationals To Protect the Security of the United States