Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. v. Rubio
Overview
Overview
The Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC), African Communities Together, and eleven individuals challenged a January 2026 State Department policy that suspended immigrant visas for nationals of 75 countries, deeming them a high risk of becoming a public charge. On August 21, 2026, Judge Jeannette A. Vargas vacated the policy under the Administrative Procedure Act, holding it unlawfully discriminates by nationality and exceeds the Secretary of State's authority.
The Issue
Issue
Whether the State Department may categorically refuse immigrant visas to nationals of 75 countries under a public-charge rationale, or whether that policy discriminates by nationality and exceeds the Secretary's statutory authority in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.
The Rules
Rule
The Immigration and Nationality Act bars discrimination in immigrant-visa issuance based on nationality (8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(1)(A)); a consular officer may refuse a visa under 8 U.S.C. 1201(g) and 22 C.F.R. 40.6 only where a ground of ineligibility exists; and the Secretary of State's authority under 8 U.S.C. 1104(a) does not extend to the granting or refusal of visas. Agency action that violates these provisions is set aside under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The Application
Analysis
The court held that the policy "requires consular officers to discriminatorily refuse visas solely on the basis of the applicant's nationality," distinguishing Trump v. Hawaii as concerning admissibility rather than visa issuance. It found the policy directs officers to refuse applicants who are otherwise eligible and that the Secretary's cable exceeded his authority over consular visa decisions. The court rejected the plaintiffs' notice-and-comment claim, concluding the policy was not a legislative rule, and did not adopt their public-charge theory.
The Conclusion
Conclusion
On August 21, 2026, the court granted the plaintiffs partial summary judgment on their contrary-to-law and Accardi claims and vacated the policy nationwide, while granting the government summary judgment on the notice-and-comment claim. The court set aside individual visa refusals based solely on the policy but left intact refusals resting on an independent ineligibility finding. This is a partial judgment under Rule 54(b); the parties were to report by September 11, 2026 on the remaining claims.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support