Judge Blocks Trump Travel Ban — Orders Green Cards and Asylum Resumed

A federal judge has delivered one of the most sweeping immigration rulings of the Trump administration's second term, ordering the government to immediately restart processing green cards, asylum applications, work permits, and citizenship applications for immigrants from 39 countries — effectively blocking a series of Trump administration policies that had frozen legal immigration benefits for hundreds of thousands of people already living in the United States.

Chief U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr., based in Providence, Rhode Island, issued the 135-page opinion on Friday, June 5, 2026, ruling that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services had enacted a series of policies that were arbitrary, capricious, contrary to federal law, and in some cases driven by what he described as "anti-immigrant sentiments" that the agency is "forbidden from letting influence its decision-making."

The ruling is a major legal defeat for the Trump administration — and a significant victory for hundreds of thousands of immigrants who had been left in legal limbo for months.

What Did the Trump Administration Actually Do?

To understand this ruling, you need to understand what USCIS did — and why.

In November 2025, an Afghan man named Rahmanullah Lakanwal allegedly shot and killed two National Guard members in Washington, D.C. The Trump administration used that attack to justify sweeping changes to immigration processing virtually overnight. USCIS — the agency responsible for handling legal immigration applications — quietly adopted a series of new internal policies that effectively froze immigration benefits for people from 39 countries subject to Trump's travel ban.

Those policies included:

• A global pause on all asylum applications filed with USCIS
• An indefinite hold on processing green card applications for nationals of the 39 travel ban countries
• A freeze on work permit renewals and new employment authorization for affected immigrants
• A halt on citizenship applications for people from those countries

The 39 countries affected span Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East — regions that the Trump administration had placed under full or partial travel bans, justified on national security and vetting grounds.

Crucially, the people affected by these policies were not illegal immigrants. They were people who had followed every legal process — filed the correct paperwork, paid the required filing fees, attended biometrics appointments, completed in-person interviews — and were simply waiting for decisions on applications they had already submitted. The freeze stopped those decisions entirely.

What Judge McConnell Found

Judge McConnell, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Barack Obama, did not pull punches in his 135-page opinion.

He found that USCIS had acted without proper legal authority, failed to provide required explanations for its actions, ignored the real-world consequences for people already in the country legally, and used "pretextual concerns of national security" as a cover for policies that were actually motivated by animus against immigrants.

"More than six months ago, USCIS enacted a series of policies that threw the lives of countless immigrants living in the United States into indeterminate legal limbo," McConnell wrote. "USCIS's hold on adjudications cannot be attributed to anything that these individuals did wrong; rather, it arises solely by the happenstance of their birth."

On the legal failings of USCIS, McConnell was equally direct: "In enacting its latest immigration policies, 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' that mask anti-immigrant sentiments that it is forbidden from letting influence its decision-making."

And on the fundamental unfairness of the policy, the judge wrote simply: "The rule of law has to apply to everyone equally and, as evident here, USCIS has neither 'followed the law' nor 'done things the right way.'"

What the Ruling Orders

Judge McConnell's ruling vacates all of the USCIS policies he found unlawful and orders the agency to immediately restart processing:

• All asylum applications previously paused
• Green card applications for nationals of the 39 travel ban countries
• Work permit renewals and new employment authorizations
• Citizenship applications previously frozen

The practical impact is enormous. Immigrants who had been stuck waiting for months — some of whom had seen their work permits expire during the freeze, putting their jobs and legal status at risk — will now have their cases moved forward again. People separated from family members due to the processing freeze will have a path to resolution.

Who Filed the Lawsuit?

The case was brought in March 2026 by a coalition of immigrant service organizations and labor unions, who challenged the USCIS policies as unlawful from the moment they were enacted. Among those celebrating the ruling was Milagro Sique, CEO of the Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island.

"Today is a good day. On behalf of the thousands of immigrants we serve, we are grateful to Judge McConnell for his ruling," Sique said in a statement. "These policies were wrong, plain and simple, and led to needless and profound fear and uncertainty for so many of our friends, neighbors, and coworkers. Having the judicial process work as intended — by upholding the rule of law — gives us some reassurance that all is not lost."

The Trump Administration's Response

The Department of Homeland Security's general counsel, James Percival, pushed back on the ruling in a statement to CBS News, dismissing it as part of a pattern of legal challenges the administration views as politically motivated.

"The Left has been running the same gambit with so-called 'animus' claims since 2017," Percival said.

The administration is widely expected to appeal the ruling. Whether a higher court issues a stay of McConnell's order while the appeal proceeds will be one of the most closely watched legal developments in the coming days.

The Bigger Picture: Immigration Courts vs. the White House

This ruling is the latest in a long string of federal court decisions that have blocked or limited Trump administration immigration policies since his return to office. Federal judges — appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents — have repeatedly found that the administration has overstepped its legal authority in its pursuit of stricter immigration enforcement.

What makes Friday's ruling particularly significant is its breadth. This wasn't a narrow ruling about one specific policy. In 135 pages, Judge McConnell systematically dismantled an entire suite of USCIS directives, finding legal problems with each one. It is, by any measure, a comprehensive rebuke.

The Trump administration's travel ban itself — the list of 39 countries whose nationals face restrictions — has survived legal challenges at the Supreme Court level in various forms since 2017. But what McConnell found unlawful here was not the travel ban per se, but rather USCIS's decision to extend the ban's logic to block legal immigration applications from people already living in the United States — going far beyond what even the travel ban itself authorized.

Key Takeaways

• Chief U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. issued a 135-page ruling on June 5, 2026 blocking Trump administration USCIS policies that froze immigration benefits for people from 39 countries
• The policies halted green cards, asylum applications, work permits, and citizenship decisions for nationals of 39 African, Asian, Latin American, and Middle Eastern countries
• McConnell found the policies unlawful — arbitrary, capricious, contrary to federal law, and driven by "anti-immigrant sentiments" USCIS is forbidden from acting on
• USCIS must now immediately restart processing all frozen applications
• The lawsuit was filed in March by immigrant service organizations and labor unions
• The Trump administration called the ruling politically motivated and is expected to appeal
• The policies were enacted following a November 2025 shooting of two National Guard members, allegedly by an Afghan man