District Court Invalidates DHS Immigration Policies
On June 5, 2026, Chief Justice John McConnell of the District of Rhode Island ruled against four key policies from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the case of Dorcas v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The challenged USCIS memorandum effectively froze nearly all legal immigration benefits for nationals from 39 countries, impacting work permits, visa applications, and naturalization processes, particularly for individuals already residing in the United States.
In my testimony before the U.S. Senate, I labeled this ban one of the most significant immigration frauds in U.S. history, exploiting applicants financially without delivering the intended services. Even Sen. John Kennedy (R-Louisiana) expressed astonishment at what he termed this blatant deception. I estimated that the agency collected upwards of $1 billion in fees from over two million applications it chose not to process.
USCIS Under Scrutiny for Policy Changes
Under the leadership of Director Joseph Edlow, USCIS implemented several controversial policy memoranda. These included suspending all asylum screenings until March 30, 2026, after which screenings were resumed only for applicants from non-high-risk countries. The agency also halted adjudication of all benefit applications—such as green cards, work permits, and naturalization—for citizens of the 39 designated countries. Furthermore, a mandatory review of previously approved benefits for those who entered the country after January 20, 2021, was ordered, with directives for adjudicators to view the applicant’s country of origin as a “material negative factor” in their decision-making.
Judicial Findings Highlight Illegality of Policies
The court found the USCIS policies to be illegal for several reasons. First, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) stipulates that USCIS must review asylum applications within 180 days and naturalization applications within 120 days. The law provides a specific regulatory schedule for employment authorization and immigration status applications. The ruling emphasized that USCIS lacks the legal authority to unilaterally suspend these decisions. Additionally, Section 202 of the INA clearly prohibits discrimination against green card applicants based on nationality.
Furthermore, Judge McConnell identified three violations of the Independent Administrative Procedure Act. He noted that USCIS failed to establish a reasonable link between the crimes associated with Afghan nationals cited in support of the memo and the suspension of applications for individuals from 39 countries, thus disregarding the substantial interests of those who had structured their lives under the expectation that their applications would be processed. The national security rationale presented by USCIS was deemed unfounded and superficial.
Lack of Evidence and Policy Contradictions
USCIS did not present any substantive evidence indicating national security threats emanating from these countries. An extensive investigation by the Cato Institute sought to clarify such assertions. Notably, after a meeting with President Trump, then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem characterized immigrants with derogatory language, asserting the nation did not desire them. These comments coincided with the announcement of the objectionable policies, revealing significant contradictions, especially in the exemptions made for World Cup athletes and healthcare professionals.
Appeal Likely Amid Continuing Immigration Challenges
While this judicial decision represents a significant step against the extensive restrictions imposed on legal immigration, it does not address ongoing visa issuance limitations for non-U.S. applicants. Nearly half of all legal immigration cases, as measured in 2024, remain obstructed due to State Department processing freezes affecting 75 countries and executive orders prohibiting entry from 39 nations. There are growing concerns that removal efforts for legal immigrants currently in the U.S. might be pursued in conjunction with these ongoing policies.
Looking ahead, it is likely that the government will appeal this ruling. Nevertheless, this case underscores a broader trend where challengers are achieving noteworthy victories against what many are calling the most anti-legal immigration administration in a century.
