Global English
Politics

Trump Administration Faces Dual Legal Blows as Courts Block Visa Caps and Residency Rules

Al Jazeera EnglishSeptember 15, 2026 at 03:02 AM0 views
Trump Administration Faces Dual Legal Blows as Courts Block Visa Caps and Residency Rules

Disclaimer

This story, titled "Trump administration suffers double legal setback over immigration rules" First published on Al Jazeera English and was retrieved from its original source on September 15, 2026.

Our site bears no responsibility for its content. You can review the details of this story at its original source.

US President Donald Trump’s administration has encountered significant legal hurdles regarding its immigration agenda, as a federal judge intervened to halt proposed visa caps while numerous Democratic-led states initiated legal actions against expanded residency restrictions.

On Monday, a US federal judge issued a block preventing the administration from enforcing fixed duration limits on foreign students and journalists currently permitted to stay in the country without seeking extensions. Simultaneously, a broad alliance of states filed lawsuits to obstruct a distinct federal regulation that empowers immigration authorities to deny green cards to immigrants utilizing lawful public benefits.

Court halts visa caps

The regulation proposed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was set to take effect on Tuesday prior to US District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV issuing an injunction in Boston, which had been requested by a coalition consisting of trade unions and higher education advocacy groups.

Under the proposed limitations by Trump, F visas for international students and J visas facilitating cultural exchange programs in the US would face a four-year cap. Meanwhile, I visas designated for journalists, which historically could last multiple years, would be restricted to 240 days.

Judge Saylor, originally appointed by Republican President George W. Bush, dismissed the DHS justification centered on national security and fraud prevention within the visa program as "exceptionally weak." He emphasized that the current framework has historically enabled tens of millions of scholars to contribute significantly to groundbreaking research and widespread economic growth, cautioning that any disruption to higher education and the broader US economy would prove "catastrophic."

These proposed measures threaten to impact approximately 1.6 million international students holding F visas along with roughly 500,000 exchange visitors utilizing J visas.

States challenge public charge rule

In Manhattan federal court, two separate lawsuits were submitted on Monday seeking to dismantle a DHS regulation scheduled for rollout on Friday. This measure aims to broaden the criteria allowing immigration officers to label applicants as inadmissible under the "public charge" provision—a legal standard historically reserved for individuals projected to rely heavily on government subsistence.

Leading the coalition of 22 states and the District of Columbia in blocking the policy are New York, California, and Illinois, supported by a parallel legal challenge initiated by six cities and counties.

Although immigration officers under the Biden administration were permitted to weigh cash assistance when reviewing green card applicants, they remained legally restricted from penalizing the utilization of non-cash support programs such as Medicaid and food assistance. In contrast, the Trump administration has pursued the reinstatement of first-term policies that categorize non-cash assistance as a disqualification metric, alongside heightened scrutiny of benefits obtained by family members of applicants.

A spokesperson for the DHS defended the regulation, characterizing the plaintiffs as "left-wing leaders" who were "terrified they will lose federal funds because hundreds of thousands of illegals and noncitizens might remove themselves from American welfare programs."

Conversely, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani released a statement arguing that the rule "seeks to push immigrant families away from the programs that have kept people fed and healthy for decades."

The filed lawsuits assert that the administration exceeded its legal authority by bypassing Congress, which retains sole jurisdiction over establishing criteria for permanent residency. By penalizing applicants who lawfully access non-cash assistance like food stamps and Medicaid, the plaintiffs maintain that the administration has instituted an unlawful restriction running contrary to federal statutes.

Share this article: