A Rhode Island judge vacated four USCIS policies that had blocked work permits, green cards, and asylum claims for nationals of nearly 40 countries since late 2025.
On June 5, 2026, Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island issued a landmark ruling in Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS, vacating four USCIS policies that had placed immigration benefits on hold for people from countries targeted by Trump administration travel bans.
The relief is nationwide.
What Policies Were Struck Down?
The court vacated and set aside four separate USCIS directives:
1. The Benefits Hold Policy — Froze work permit (EAD) approvals, green card adjudications, naturalization, and other immigration benefits for nationals of approximately 39 countries designated “high risk” under executive travel bans, including Iran, Nigeria, and Venezuela.
2. The Global Asylum Hold Policy — Halted processing of all asylum claims across the board, regardless of country of origin.
3. The Comprehensive Re-Review Policy — Required USCIS to re-examine and reopen previously approved benefits for applicants from travel ban countries.
4. The Country-Specific Discretionary Factors Policy — Directed USCIS officers to weigh travel ban executive proclamations as negative factors in individual benefit decisions — even for people already lawfully present in the United States.
Both the Benefits Hold and the Global Asylum Hold originated in memos issued by USCIS Director Joseph Edlow in December 2025 and early 2026.
Why Did the Court Rule Against the Government?
Chief Judge McConnell found the policies unlawful on multiple grounds under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA):
Arbitrary and capricious agency action. USCIS failed to provide a “reasoned explanation” for the policies and did not account for the reliance interests of hundreds of thousands of people whose pending applications were frozen.
Pretextual justification. The government framed the freeze as a temporary security measure following the shooting of two National Guard members in Washington, D.C. in late 2025. The court rejected this framing, finding that the policies went far beyond any rational connection to that incident — and that derogatory statements made by administration officials after the shooting were evidence of anti-immigrant animus driving the policies.
No lawful basis for applying travel ban criteria to people already in the U.S. The court found that presidential proclamations restricting entry into the country cannot be legally extended to deny or delay benefits for people who are already here.
In the judge’s own words: “The Government effectively invites the Court to shut its eyes and ignore the strong evidence of anti-immigrant animus before it. Doing so would require profound naiveté on the Court’s part.”
Who Was Affected?
The freeze has been in effect since late 2025 and impacted a broad range of immigration cases:
- Adjustment of status applications (green cards for people already in the U.S.)
- Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) — leaving many lawful residents unable to work
- Naturalization applications
- Asylum claims
- Individuals from roughly 39 countries currently subject to travel restrictions
Many affected individuals lost their jobs. Others saw their lawful immigration status put in jeopardy as months passed without adjudication.
The Trump administration had partially walked back the policy in two instances: it lifted the asylum hold in March 2026 (but only for people not from travel ban countries), and quietly relaxed the benefits freeze for physicians in May 2026 amid pressure from medical organizations and Congress.
What Does “Vacatur” Mean — and Why Does It Matter?
The court chose to vacate and set aside the challenged policies rather than issue a permanent injunction. This is a meaningful distinction.
Vacatur under the APA voids the policies themselves — they no longer exist as valid agency directives. This provides nationwide relief covering all affected individuals, not just the plaintiffs in this case. The court explicitly noted that vacatur “provides nationwide relief that redresses injuries suffered by members of the Organizational Plaintiffs.”
A permanent injunction, by contrast, would have blocked enforcement of the policies but left them on the books. The judge declined to issue one, finding it unnecessary given the vacatur.
What Happens Next?
The ruling raises immediate practical questions:
Will the government seek a stay pending appeal? The Trump administration is expected to appeal, and it may request that a higher court pause the ruling while the appeal proceeds. If a stay is granted, the policies could effectively be reinstated while litigation continues.
How will USCIS implement the ruling for pending cases? There are likely thousands of cases that were frozen under these policies. Whether USCIS resumes adjudications promptly — or moves slowly — will determine how quickly affected individuals see real relief.
What this means for employers. Companies with employees whose work authorization renewals or green card applications were paused under these policies should monitor the situation closely. If no stay is entered, USCIS should begin moving those cases forward.
What Powers Law Group Can Do for You
If your case was frozen under any of these USCIS policies — whether you are waiting for a green card, a work permit, an asylum decision, or naturalization — you may now be entitled to have your application adjudicated.
This is not automatic. Government agencies do not always move quickly to implement court rulings, especially when they intend to appeal. An immigration attorney can help you understand where your case stands, whether to proactively follow up with USCIS, and how to protect your status in the meantime.
Contact Powers Law Group for a consultation.
Sources
- Bloomberg Law, Trump Benefit Freeze for Travel Ban Countries Found Unlawful, June 5, 2026. https://www.bloomberglaw.com
- Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS, No. 1:26-cv-00132, D.R.I., Order issued June 5, 2026.
- USCIS Director Joseph Edlow, Benefits Hold Memo, December 2025.
- American Immigration Council, Travel Ban and Immigration Enforcement: Overview, 2026. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org
- Democracy Forward, Statement on Dorcas International Institute v. USCIS ruling, June 5, 2026. https://www.democracyforward.org
- National Immigration Law Center, Employment Authorization and the Travel Ban Freeze, 2026. https://www.nilc.org
- Muslim Advocates, Lawsuit Challenges USCIS Benefits Freeze, 2026. https://www.muslimadvocates.org
- Reuters, Federal Courts and Trump Immigration Policy: Running Tally of Legal Defeats, 2026. https://www.reuters.com
- The New York Times, Trump Immigration Crackdown and the Courts, 2026. https://www.nytimes.com
- Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2).
