Catholic Legal Group Joins Coalition Suing the Government to Block Visa Ban for 75 Nations Entering the USA
.png)
Catholic Legal Group Sues to Block Visa Ban for 75 Nations
A coalition led by the Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC) is formally challenging a Trump administration policy that has halted immigrant visa processing for citizens of 75 different countries (see full list at bottom). The lawsuit, CLINIC v. Rubio, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, disputes the government’s primary justification for the ban: that migrants from these nations place an "unacceptable" burden on the American welfare system.
The Core of the Dispute
The State Department labeled the affected countries as "Nationalities at High Risk of U.S. Public Benefits Reliance." Officials stated the freeze would remain in effect until the U.S. can guarantee that new arrivals will not "extract wealth" from the American public.
However, the legal challenge argues that this claim is "demonstrably false" and lacks evidentiary support. Legal experts and advocates point to several key counter-arguments:
Legal Ineligibility: Most new immigrants are legally barred from accessing federal cash welfare for several years after arrival.
Separation of Families: The ban affects nearly 40% of the world's nations, leaving U.S. citizens indefinitely separated from spouses, children, and parents.
Economic Contribution: Data suggests that immigrants often have higher labor force participation rates than native-born citizens.
"Family reunification is central to our immigration system and to Catholic teaching. Blaming immigrants may be expedient politics, but it undermines both the rule of law and our nation’s commitment to keeping families together."
— Charles Wheeler, Senior Attorney at CLINIC
Conflicting Data on Welfare Use
The lawsuit’s claims are bolstered by a recent analysis from the Cato Institute, which found that immigrants consistently use lower levels of welfare than native-born Americans across almost every program.
| Metric | Cato Institute Findings |
| Usage Rates | Immigrants use less welfare than native-born citizens at similar income levels. |
| Primary Drivers | Higher work requirements and strict legal bars to benefit eligibility. |
| Counter-Argument | Critics (such as the Center for Immigration Studies) argue that "immigrant-headed households" show higher usage, though Cato researchers argue this metric incorrectly counts benefits used by native-born spouses or children. |
Context of the Policy
The visa suspension is part of a broader suite of restrictive measures introduced by the administration following a November 2025 shooting of two National Guard members in Washington, D.C. The suspect in that case was an Afghan national with legal status.
The lawsuit involves a broad coalition of advocates, including the National Immigration Law Center, Democracy Forward, and the Legal Aid Society. As of late February, the federal government has yet to file a formal response in court.
What Are the 75 Countries Listed in the Ban?
In alphabetical order, they are: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burma, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, The Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyz Republic, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Pakistan, Republic of the Congo, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, and Yemen.
Sources: https://www.nilc.org/press/civil-immigrants-rights-leaders-speak-out-against-trump-admin-suspension-immigrant-visa-processing-75-countries/
https://www.nilc.org/litigation/clinic-v-rubio/
Comments