{"id":2650377,"date":"2026-08-27T08:48:58","date_gmt":"2026-08-27T12:48:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/utm_sourcerssutm_mediumrssutm_campaignjudicial-activism-sabotages-trumps-efforts-to-keep-migrants-from-sponging-off-taxpayers\/"},"modified":"2026-08-27T09:00:28","modified_gmt":"2026-08-27T13:00:28","slug":"utm_sourcerssutm_mediumrssutm_campaignjudicial-activism-sabotages-trumps-efforts-to-keep-migrants-from-sponging-off-taxpayers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/utm_sourcerssutm_mediumrssutm_campaignjudicial-activism-sabotages-trumps-efforts-to-keep-migrants-from-sponging-off-taxpayers\/","title":{"rendered":"Judicial Activism Sabotages Trump&#8217;s Efforts To Keep Migrants From Sponging Off Taxpayers"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">24<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Futm_sourcerssutm_mediumrssutm_campaignjudicial-activism-sabotages-trumps-efforts-to-keep-migrants-from-sponging-off-taxpayers%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2650377&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>The article discusses a recent judicial decision by Judge Jeanette Vargas in the Southern District of new York,who nullified a State Department policy issued on January 21,2026. This policy, created under Secretary of state Marco Rubio, aimed to prohibit issuing immigrant visas to nationals from 75 identified countries, primarily third-world nations deemed high-risk for public welfare dependency. The judge&#8217;s ruling was based on the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which prohibits discrimination based on nationality in visa issuance, stating that the categorical ban violated this law. Although the policy was rooted in concerns over public charge risks, the judge found that targeting countries broadly was unlawful discrimination, even if some considerations regarding public charge are permitted under law.<\/p>\n<p>The case was brought by immigrants and supported by immigration NGOs,notably Catholic Legal Immigration Network and African Communities Together,<a href=\"https:\/\/amzn.to\/3YuVZYV\" >reflecting ongoing ideological battles surrounding immigration policy<\/a>. The article critiques the selective application of standing doctrine by courts-highlighting inconsistent treatment of pro-immigration versus pro-life groups-and questions the fairness and logic of current immigration laws, which balance national security and discrimination concerns.<\/p>\n<p>The article suggests that the trump governance should appeal the decision and considers option strategies such as delaying visa processes to circumvent direct legal challenges. It also emphasizes that the ruling primarily targets the policy related to public charges, not Trump&#8217;s broader national security immigration bans from certain countries, which have been upheld previously by the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n<p>the piece advocates for reforming the U.S. immigration system to address its flaws,including past restrictions that may have been justified,and urges the passage of laws that better protect American interests while acknowledging the inherent discrimination involved in selecting immigrants. The author concludes that meaningful immigration reform is essential to prevent abuse, improve national security, and serve the interests of the American people.  <\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\">\n    <button onclick=\"showReadMore()\" id=\"readmorebtn\">Read more&#8230;<\/button>\n<\/p>\n<hr id=\"line\">\n<span id=\"more\"><\/p>\n<div>\n<p>On Friday, Federal District Judge Jeanette Vargas of the Southern District of New York \u2014 a Biden appointee \u2014 <a href=\"https:\/\/x.com\/scotus_wire\/status\/2090955166715465872\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">set aside<\/a> the policy action of the State Department on Jan. 21, 2026, in which Secretary of State Marco Rubio had <a href=\"https:\/\/travel.state.gov\/content\/travel\/en\/News\/visas-news\/immigrant-visa-processing-updates-for-nationalities-at-high-risk-of-public-benefits-usage.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">ordered a ban<\/a> on issuing immigrant visas to nationals from 75 different countries.\u00a0These countries were predominantly third-world countries, from which foreign nationals had been identified as high risks of becoming reliant on public welfare in the U.S. President Trump had <a href=\"https:\/\/www.whitehouse.gov\/presidential-actions\/2025\/02\/ending-taxpayer-subsidization-of-open-borders\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">pledged to end<\/a> the taxpayer subsidization of legal and illegal immigrants, and this step from the State Department was a key mechanism in carrying out his agenda. <\/p>\n<p>Vargas\u2019 order was technically an exercise of the <em>vacatur <\/em>power under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), by which federal judges can vacate final actions of executive agencies if that action is determined by judicial review to be arbitrary or capricious, unconstitutional, violating procedure, or exceeding statutory grants of power to the agency. <\/p>\n<p>Notably, even though the Supreme Court ruling in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/24pdf\/24a884_8n59.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><em>Trump v. CASA <\/em>(2025)<\/a> last summer clarified that federal district judges cannot constitutionally issue universal injunctions as a form of relief, that decision left open the <em>vacatur <\/em>power as a means by which judges can continue to thwart agency actions of the Trump administration. <\/p>\n<h2><strong>The Usual \u2018Christian\u2019 Suspects Strike Again<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p>It\u2019s worth noting who sued the Trump administration in this case. Not only did applicants for immigrant visas from the targeted countries sue, but their suit was supported by pro-immigration NGOs Catholic Legal Immigration Network and African Communities Together. <\/p>\n<p>Just as in almost every previous case, the legal and NGO arms of the Catholic Church are found lobbying for unrestricted immigration against every action of the Trump administration.\u00a0Under the Biden administration, Catholic Charities was <a href=\"https:\/\/justthenews.com\/government\/federal-agencies\/biden-immigration-policies-were-boon-catholic-charities-which-raked\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">one of the largest NGO recipients of funding \u2013 to the tune of more than $2 billion \u2013 for resettling migrants within the U.S.<\/a> The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has filed pro-migrant amicus briefs in multiple cases, such as recently <a href=\"https:\/\/www.usccb.org\/resources\/26-0227_Amicus_TrumpvBarbara.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">against the president\u2019s position on birthplace citizenship<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/x.com\/USCCB\/status\/2070536365679190115\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">ending TPS<\/a>.\u00a0And it\u2019s not just the Catholic NGOs, but <a href=\"https:\/\/www.effort.news\/pc\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">many Protestant and other \u201cChristian\u201d organizations<\/a>, such as <a href=\"https:\/\/www.influencewatch.org\/non-profit\/global-refugee\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">the ELCA\u2019s Global Refuge<\/a>, which are also responsible for funding, sponsoring, and enabling the migrant invasion into the U.S. <\/p>\n<p>The plaintiffs in the suit are a collection of immigrants in the U.S. (some naturalized as citizens, while others not) who sued on behalf of foreign family members seeking immigration visas who they sought to bring to the U.S.\u00a0The doctrine of <em>standing <\/em>(i.e., who has standing to bring a suit in federal court) and its judicial application is one of the most confounding and inconsistent features of law. <\/p>\n<p>\u201cIntending\u201d immigrants in other countries who have not yet come to the U.S. should not have standing to sue in federal courts because they have no rights under our Constitution and they are not residing in the U.S. It is conceivable that family members already in the U.S. could have standing to sue, but this seems ripe for abuse, as is the entire system <a href=\"https:\/\/x.com\/WhitePapersPol\/status\/2024670983416668270\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">of chain migration<\/a> by which migrants have successfully brought entire family networks to the U.S. <\/p>\n<p>Also, it is unclear why third parties like NGOs should have associational standing to sue here.\u00a0 When Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, a group of <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/she-was-in-the-middle-of-having-an-abortion-daily-wire-reporter-joins-laura-ingraham-to-discuss-gruesome-reports-of-d-c-abortion-clinic\/\" title=\"\u2018She Was In The Middle Of Having An Abortion...: Daily Wire Reporter Joins Laura Ingraham To Discuss Gruesome Reports Of D.C. Abortion Clinic\">pro-life doctors<\/a>, tried to challenge the Biden administration\u2019s regulations surrounding mifepristone, the Supreme Court held 9-0 in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/23pdf\/23-235_n7ip.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><em>FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine <\/em>(2024)<\/a> that they lacked standing to bring the suit.\u00a0Why standing for pro-immigration NGOs, but not for pro-life ones?\u00a0The hypocrisy is glaring, and standing doctrine has long been employed selectively at the preference of the judges. <\/p>\n<h2><strong>Reasoning of the Court?<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p>Judge Vargas held that the Immigration and Nationality Act does not permit the executive to discriminate based upon nationality in the issuance of visas. She wrote: <\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>\u201cThe INA prohibits discrimination on the basis of nationality in the issuance of immigrant visas. The [Secretary\u2019s] Policy categorically bans nationals of 75 countries from receiving immigrant visas, even when otherwise eligible, based solely on their nationality. The INA explicitly strips the Secretary of State of authority over consular adjudication of immigrant visas.\u201d  <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>According to Vargas, because the INA <a href=\"https:\/\/uscode.ecfr.io\/title\/8\/section\/1152\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">8 U.S.C. \u00a71151 (a)<\/a> prohibits discrimination based upon nationality, the Trump administration and Secretary Rubio cannot order the suspension of visas based on nationality, as they attempted to do.<\/p>\n<p>Vargas admitted that Secretary Rubio\u2019s ban on immigrant visas for those foreign nationals from those 75 countries was based on the statistical likelihood of immigrants from those countries becoming a \u201cpublic charge,\u201d something the law, <a href=\"https:\/\/uscode.ecfr.io\/title\/8\/section\/1182\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">8 U.S.C. \u00a71182 (a)4<\/a>, does permit the executive to take into account. Nevertheless, because the executive\u2019s determination targeted countries categorically instead of judging by individual basis in each case of each applicant, it is unlawfully discriminatory. <\/p>\n<p>The law is murky here. Technically, the executive has latitude to ban immigration for national security reasons or restrict issuance of visas based upon likelihood of immigrants becoming a public charge. But, given the way the statute is written, if the executive just lists a set of countries whose nationals are at risk of becoming a public charge, that could technically be unlawful discrimination based upon nationality. <\/p>\n<p>The tension here highlights the absurdity of our immigration law as it exists with a requirement that the nation not discriminate against anyone anywhere in the world.\u00a0How can the executive make determinations about national security risks or preventing public charges <em>without <\/em>some kind of discrimination? <\/p>\n<h2><strong>Way Forward for the Trump Administration<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p>Given that the judge set aside the entire policy from the State Department as unlawful, the Trump administration should appeal this decision as quickly as possible to hopefully get relief from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.\u00a0If that fails, they should appeal to the Supreme Court.\u00a0Hopefully this process can be expedited, given the risks to national security and great harm that will come if the government is required to drop this policy. <\/p>\n<p>Nevertheless, another creative workaround would be for the government to continue denying visas to applicants from these banned countries but simply drag out the process through increased scrutiny and claim that the determinations are all on an individual, case-by-case basis, instead of the allegedly unlawful basis of nationality. <\/p>\n<p>It\u2019s also worth noting that in this case, the judge set aside the Secretary of State\u2019s Jan. 21, 2026 policy targeting public charges.\u00a0However, this is distinct from Trump\u2019s existing <a href=\"https:\/\/www.whitehouse.gov\/presidential-actions\/2025\/12\/restricting-and-limiting-the-entry-of-foreign-nationals-to-protect-the-security-of-the-united-states\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">ban by executive order on immigration from dozens of third world countries for national security concerns<\/a>.\u00a0Some of these countries <a href=\"https:\/\/x.com\/derzum_\/status\/2087956381051560320\/photo\/1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">definitely overlap<\/a>, but perhaps Trump should designate even more countries as national security risks if that is what it takes to curtail immigration.\u00a0Judge Vargas admitted in her opinion that the Supreme Court already upheld Trump\u2019s ban on entry for foreign nationals from designated threat countries in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/17pdf\/17-965_h315.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><em>Trump v. Hawaii <\/em>(2018)<\/a> in his first term. <\/p>\n<h2><strong>Fix the Broken System<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p>This case is yet another reminder of how flawed our existing immigration system is.\u00a0Not only has the Trump administration faced numerous obstacles and judicial obstruction in its attempt to enforce existing laws and deport illegal aliens, but \u201clegal\u201d immigration itself is ripe for abuse under our existing laws.\u00a0It is impossible to have any system of immigration law that does not discriminate upon some factors.\u00a0Ethnicity or nationality is a legitimate and natural basis upon which our nation should indeed discriminate in considering who can receive a visa or become a citizen in our country.\u00a0The Hart-Cellar Immigration Act of 1965 and the later 1990 Immigration Act were passed by Democrats and pro-immigration Republicans with the deliberate intention of ending what they viewed as the discriminatory nature of America\u2019s previous immigration laws. <\/p>\n<p>Decades of essentially open borders to unlimited legal and illegal migration into America have led to increased crime, unassimilated ethnic enclaves within the country, and increasing <a href=\"https:\/\/x.com\/WhitePapersPol\/status\/2024638097464361029\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">immigrant reliance on<\/a> welfare.\u00a0Maybe the previous discriminatory system of immigration had a rational basis after all and should be revisited.\u00a0It is long past time to curtail immigration for the benefit of the American people and our offspring.\u00a0Everyone in the world is not entitled to come to America and become an \u201cAmerican.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Trump is taking the right steps to fight back, but there remains much work to do.\u00a0Not only must we get past the ubiquitous judicial obstruction, but we ultimately need to amend the laws and pass better, more restrictive immigration laws that are less ripe for abuse. <\/p>\n<hr>\n<p>      Samuel Kimzey is a doctoral student at Hillsdale College and a 2025 Publius Fellow at the Claremont Institute. He holds a B.A. in History and Christian Studies from Bluefield College and an M.A. in Humanities from the University of Dallas, and previously taught at Valley Classical School in Blacksburg, Virginia. Find him on X <a href=\"https:\/\/x.com\/SamuelMKimzey\" target=\"_blank\">@SamuelMKimzey<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Judge blocks Biden-era visa ban from 75 countries<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3922,"featured_media":2650378,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/090819-h-cbpxx999-0003-scaled.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[33651],"tags":[45976,84743,84741,84742,84740],"class_list":["post-2650377","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-western-journal","tag-judicial-activism","tag-legal-interventions","tag-migrant-assistance","tag-taxpayer-relief","tag-trumps-immigration-policies"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/090819-h-cbpxx999-0003-scaled.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2650377","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3922"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2650377"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2650377\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2650381,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2650377\/revisions\/2650381"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2650378"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2650377"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2650377"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2650377"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}