On June 5, 2026, a federal judge in Rhode Island blocked a series of Trump administration measures that had stopped officials from granting asylum, green cards, and other legal immigration benefits to large numbers of immigrants already in the United States.

In a 135-page opinion, Chief Judge John McConnell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island found the sweeping limits to be arbitrary and capricious and contrary to federal law. The ruling requires USCIS to resume processing hundreds of thousands of applications that had been placed on indefinite hold.

The policies were adopted in late 2025, in the days following the shooting of two National Guard members in Washington, D.C. The man charged in that shooting had been brought to the U.S. in 2021 and granted asylum in 2025. The administration cited national security and “extreme vetting” as the basis for the new restrictions.

During those weeks, USCIS announced four key policy changes:

• A suspension on granting all immigration benefits — including naturalization, green cards, work permits, and visa petitions — for nationals of countries subject to a travel ban.
• A directive that an applicant’s nationality be treated as a “significant negative factor,” effectively starting certain cases with a strike against them.
• A “re-review” of immigration benefits already granted to people from the 39 affected countries since the start of the prior administration.
• An indefinite suspension on granting asylum applications at USCIS.

In practice, the pause largely barred USCIS from issuing green cards, work permits, U.S. citizenship, and other benefits to citizens of the affected countries — many of them in Africa and Asia. An initial, broader hold on asylum cases was partially lifted in March 2026 for most nationalities, but remained in place for citizens of the 39 listed countries.

Hundreds of thousands of people suddenly had their cases frozen — often with serious real-world consequences, including the risk of losing jobs or the ability to remain in the country lawfully. In one example cited in the litigation, a clinical cancer researcher faced losing her position because her work permit renewal was delayed.

As Judge McConnell noted, the affected immigrants had done everything asked of them: they “filed the appropriate paperwork, paid the required filing fees, submitted to the requested biometrics collections, and attended the necessary in person interviews.” Despite early suggestions that the holds would be lifted within 90 days, most of the policies were still fully in effect roughly six months later.

The court struck down the policies for several independent reasons:

• No legal authority: Federal laws and regulations governing applications — including asylum and naturalization — direct that the government “shall” decide cases in the ordinary course. USCIS had no authority to refuse to adjudicate applications indefinitely, and some policies ran afoul of laws barring nationality-based discrimination in visa decisions.
• Arbitrary and capricious: The government offered no reasoned explanation for why it was necessary to indefinitely suspend benefits for nationals of countries as different as Cuba, Venezuela, and Nigeria based on the actions of one individual from Afghanistan.
• Improper motive: The court concluded that the evidence pointed to anti-immigrant animus behind the policies, finding it “impossible to ignore the backdrop against which the Challenged Policies were implemented.”

In the court’s words, USCIS “claims statutory and regulatory authority that it does not possess; makes decisions without the reasoned explanations that it must provide; acts without regard for the reliance interests of applicants that it must consider; and justifies its actions with pretextual concerns of ‘national security.’”

The Department of Homeland Security criticized the decision and signaled disagreement with the court’s reasoning.

The decision took effect immediately, requiring USCIS to stop enforcing the blocked policies and to resume adjudicating the affected applications. If the administration does not obtain quick relief on appeal, USCIS must return to treating all nationalities equally — applying the same vetting standards to everyone and approving applications that meet federal requirements.

It is important to understand what the ruling does not touch. It does not undo separate restrictions imposed by the State Department, including a pause on immigrant visas for nationals of dozens of countries, nor does it lift the underlying travel and entry ban itself.

The administration can appeal the ruling to the First Circuit Court of Appeals and may seek an emergency stay while the appeal proceeds. If the First Circuit declines to pause the decision, the government could ask the Supreme Court for emergency relief.

For now, however, the policies remain blocked, and USCIS is required to begin moving the affected cases forward again. Applicants whose cases were frozen should watch for case status updates and be prepared to act quickly if USCIS requests additional information.

If your case was caught up in these suspensions — or if you are unsure whether your nationality or application type was affected — this ruling may change where your case stands. The situation is also still developing, since an appeal could follow.

At Keller Law Group, LLC, we help clients understand how fast-moving immigration policy changes affect their specific cases, respond to USCIS requests, and protect their place in line.

Schedule a consultation today.
Keller Law Group, LLC
Phone: (857) 810-8040
Email: hello@kellerimmigration.com