A federal judge in New York has vacated the Trump administration policy that suspended the processing of immigrant visas for nationals of 75 countries, including Afghanistan, Iran, Russia and Somalia.

U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas set the policy aside on Friday, ruling that it was “contrary to law and in excess of statutory authority”, The Associated Press reported. The judge said Secretary of State Marco Rubio had exceeded his authority by directing the refusal of visas to otherwise eligible applicants without a legal basis for doing so.

The central issue was not whether an individual applicant met the requirements for a visa. It was whether the government could impose a nationality-wide suspension before the ordinary consular assessment took place. Vargas said Congress had given consular officers the exclusive authority and discretion to decide eligibility using the specific criteria set out in immigration law.

In the judge’s formulation, the policy did more than add a screening factor. It categorically prohibited the issuance of immigrant visas based on the applicant’s nationality and therefore displaced the individual review that the statute requires. That distinction is likely to shape any appeal and the practical instructions sent to US embassies and consulates.

The ruling was brought by two nonprofit organisations and 11 individuals, including people whose family members had been refused visas and people outside the United States with employment-based petitions. Their lawyers argued that the policy had separated families and blocked legal immigration pathways without the case-by-case decision that the law contemplated.

The State Department said it was protecting Americans by maintaining high standards of screening and vetting, but told AP it would not comment on pending litigation. That means the legal position is clearer than the operational picture. The court has vacated the policy, but applicants and consular posts still need to see how the administration implements the order and whether it seeks a stay or an appeal.

The decision also sits inside a wider conflict between the administration’s immigration programme and the limits imposed by Congress and the courts. A court ruling against one policy does not decide every other travel or visa restriction, and it does not guarantee that any individual applicant will qualify. It does, however, remove the blanket rule challenged in this case, subject to further court action.

For affected families, the meaningful question is whether their applications are returned to normal individual review rather than left behind a nationality filter. For the government, the next test is whether its guidance respects the judge’s reasoning while preserving the screening authority it says is essential. The ruling changes the legal terrain immediately; the pace of practical change will depend on what happens next in court and at the consulates.