Federal Judge Strikes Down Trump USCIS Policy Stalling Benefits For 39- Country List
U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr. struck down a Trump-era policy that barred final decisions on asylum, work permits, green cards and naturalization for people from 39 countries in Boston on Friday, June 5, 2026.[1]
McConnell wrote that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services claimed powers it did not have, failed to give reasoned explanations and ignored applicants' reliance interests.[1] He said the agency relied on "pretextual" national security concerns that masked anti-immigrant sentiments and called the policy "contrary to law" and "arbitrary and capricious." PBS News
After the National Guard shooting, the administration implemented a rule that categorically barred USCIS from issuing final decisions on asylum-related benefits for applicants from 39 listed countries.[1] The ban covered countries across Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East and left applicants in "indeterminate legal limbo" by stopping final adjudications instead of deciding each case individually.[1] CBS News said the decision joins other rulings that blocked many legal immigration cases.[2]
McConnell's ruling applies only to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services benefits adjudications and does not affect asylum decisions made by immigration judges for people stopped at the border.[1] The Justice Department had argued that Congress gave the executive broad authority over immigration, but the court denied a motion to dismiss that claim.[1]
Show source details & analysis (2 sources)
📌 Key Facts
- On Friday, June 5, 2026, in Boston, U.S. District Chief Judge John McConnell Jr. issued a ruling striking down the Trump administration policy that — after the National Guard shooting — categorically barred final decisions on asylum, work permits, green cards, and citizenship for immigrants from 39 countries (U.S. District Chief Judge John McConnell Jr.).
- McConnell wrote that USCIS claimed statutory and regulatory authority it lacked, failed to provide reasoned explanations, ignored applicants' reliance interests, and relied on "pretextual" national security concerns masking anti‑immigrant sentiments, deeming the policy "contrary to law" and "arbitrary and capricious" (McConnell).
- The ruling targets USCIS benefits adjudications and explicitly does not affect asylum decisions made by immigration judges for people stopped at the border (USCIS benefits adjudications).
- The policies left immigrants from the 39 listed countries across Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East in "indeterminate legal limbo" by categorically barring final decisions on their applications (39 listed countries).
- The Justice Department had argued in a motion to dismiss — denied by the court — that Congress gave the executive broad authority over immigration, including to confer or withdraw discretionary benefits under the statutory scheme (Justice Department).
📰 Source Timeline (2)
Follow how coverage of this story developed over time
- On Friday, June 5, 2026, in Boston, U.S. District Chief Judge John McConnell Jr. issued a ruling striking down the Trump administration policy that, after the National Guard shooting, categorically barred final decisions on asylum, work permits, green cards, and citizenship for immigrants from 39 countries.
- McConnell wrote that USCIS claimed statutory and regulatory authority it lacked, failed to provide reasoned explanations, ignored applicants' reliance interests, and relied on "pretextual" national security concerns masking anti-immigrant sentiments, deeming the policy "contrary to law" and "arbitrary and capricious."
- The ruling focuses on USCIS benefits adjudications and explicitly does not affect asylum decisions made by immigration judges for people stopped at the border.
- The article emphasizes that the policies left immigrants from the 39 listed African, Asian, Latin American, and Middle Eastern countries in "indeterminate legal limbo" by categorically barring final decisions on their applications.
- The Justice Department had argued in a motion to dismiss (denied by the court) that Congress gave the executive branch broad authority over immigration, including to confer or withdraw discretionary benefits under the statutory scheme.