A Boston federal judge blocked a USCIS policy penalizing travel-ban country applicants, finding it likely violates the INA's nationality-discrimination bar.
A federal district judge in Boston issued a preliminary injunction on May 1, 2026, barring U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services from treating an applicant's nationality from a travel-ban country as a "significant negative factor" in immigration adjudications [1]. The policy had applied across a broad range of proceedings, including asylum applications, green card petitions, work permits, and naturalization cases [1].
The ruling came from U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts [1]. Judge Kobick found that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, concluding that the USCIS policy likely violated the Immigration and Nationality Act's provisions barring nationality-based discrimination in immigration adjudications [1]. The court did not reach constitutional grounds, grounding its analysis instead in the text and structure of the INA itself [1].
The statutory basis of the ruling carries distinct strategic weight. Courts reviewing challenges on statutory grounds apply a different, and in many respects narrower, appellate framework than those reviewing claims rooted in constitutional authority. When a court finds that an agency action conflicts with a governing statute, the government's task on appeal is to demonstrate that the agency acted within the bounds Congress actually authorized, a showing that broad executive-power arguments do not easily satisfy [1]. That posture places the administration on less favorable terrain than it would face defending an action justified primarily by inherent presidential authority over foreign affairs or national security [1].
The injunction fits a pattern that federal courts have developed in 2026, in which judges have increasingly scrutinized Trump administration immigration directives for statutory compliance rather than accepting deference to executive discretion [1]. Plaintiffs in those cases have framed their claims to engage the INA directly, a litigation strategy that sidesteps some of the threshold justiciability hurdles that constitutional challenges can encounter [1].
USCIS has not yet indicated whether it will seek a stay pending appeal or move to narrow the injunction's scope through further briefing [1]. The government retains the option to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, where the scope of the preliminary injunction and the district court's statutory interpretation will face de novo review on the legal questions [1]. Compliance timelines and any administrative guidance issued by USCIS to adjudicators will determine how quickly the ruling alters processing for affected applicants [1].