(DDM) – Pro-immigration advocates have taken the Trump administration to court over a sweeping immigrant visa restriction that affects Nigeria and dozens of other countries, escalating a fresh legal battle over U.S. immigration policy.
A coalition of immigration support organizations filed the lawsuit in a federal court in Manhattan, arguing that the U.S. government unlawfully stopped or slowed immigrant visa processing for citizens of about 75 countries.
The groups say the policy has already harmed families, workers, and employers who rely on legal immigration channels to reunite relatives or fill critical jobs in the United States.
They accuse the administration of imposing a broad nationality-based restriction instead of reviewing applicants individually, which U.S. immigration law typically requires.
According to the plaintiffs, the State Department justified the move by pointing to concerns that migrants from the affected countries might rely heavily on public welfare programs.
However, the lawsuit argues that this reasoning misrepresents U.S. welfare rules because most new immigrants cannot access federal cash assistance for several years after arrival.
The plaintiffs also stress that immigration officers already evaluate “public charge” risks case by case under existing law, making a blanket pause unnecessary and excessive.
Catholic Legal Immigration Network, widely known as CLINIC, leads the legal action and represents several people directly affected by the visa slowdown.
These include U.S. citizens waiting to bring spouses or children from abroad and foreign professionals with approved employment-based petitions.
The lawsuit names Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the U.S. Department of State as defendants, placing responsibility for the policy at the highest diplomatic levels.
Lawyers for the groups claim the administration bypassed normal rule-making procedures, such as public notice and comment, before implementing the change.
They argue that this shortcut violates the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies create major policies.
The complaint further contends that the measure clashes with the Immigration and Nationality Act, which discourages discrimination based on nationality in visa decisions.
Advocates frame the policy as discriminatory because many of the listed countries lie in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean rather than Europe.
They say this pattern raises constitutional concerns about equal protection and fairness in how the government treats different nationalities.
Supporters of stricter immigration controls defend the administration’s stance, saying the government has the right to shape immigration in line with economic and social priorities.
They argue that leaders must consider potential fiscal impacts and integration challenges when setting visa policies.
Critics respond that legal immigration already includes financial screening and sponsorship requirements designed to limit public costs.
They warn that sudden restrictions create uncertainty, separate families, and discourage skilled migrants who contribute to the U.S. economy.
The case now moves through the federal court system, where judges will examine whether the executive branch overstepped its authority.
A ruling against the administration could force a return to normal visa processing and limit future nationality-based pauses.
A ruling in favor of the government could expand presidential power over legal immigration flows.
For Nigerians and other affected nationals, the outcome may shape how quickly they can pursue permanent residence in the United States.
The lawsuit highlights how immigration remains one of the most divisive issues in American politics, especially during periods of economic anxiety and electoral competition.
As the legal fight unfolds, families and applicants continue to wait, caught between policy goals and personal dreams tied to migration.
