A Boston federal judge blocked a USCIS policy penalizing applicants from travel-ban countries, finding it likely violates the INA's anti-discrimination bar.
U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick of the District of Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction on May 1, 2026, halting a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services policy that designated an applicant's nationality from a travel-ban-listed country as a "significant negative factor" in immigration adjudications [1]. The injunction covers a broad range of benefit categories, including asylum claims, green card petitions, work permit applications, and naturalization proceedings [1].
The ruling came in a federal challenge filed in Boston targeting the USCIS policy on statutory grounds. Plaintiffs argued that the policy violated the Immigration and Nationality Act's prohibition on nationality-based discrimination in immigration decisions, and that a separate agency practice, a broader halt on processing applications from affected nationals, conflicted with mandatory congressional processing requirements [1]. Judge Kobick found that plaintiffs had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of both claims, satisfying the threshold showing required for preliminary injunctive relief [1].
The substantive significance of the ruling lies in its statutory framing. Rather than resting on constitutional grounds, the court grounded its analysis in the INA's anti-discrimination provisions, a framework that constrains executive discretion without requiring judges to weigh due process or equal protection arguments [1]. That approach may prove more durable on appeal. The decision also signals that courts are prepared to examine not only the facial legality of travel-ban designations but also the downstream agency policies those designations generate, potentially affecting thousands of pending applications across multiple benefit categories [1].
The ruling fits within a documented pattern of federal courts limiting executive immigration actions since late 2025, as the administration has moved to tighten enforcement across multiple statutory and regulatory fronts [1]. Judge Kobick's order does not resolve the underlying merits; it preserves the status quo while litigation proceeds. The government is expected to appeal, and the administration retains authority to seek a stay from the First Circuit pending that appeal. Further briefing on the merits will determine whether the injunction converts into permanent relief or is reversed before a final judgment issues.