A Rhode Island federal judge vacated four USCIS policies freezing immigration benefits for nationals of 39 countries, using broad APA vacatur rather than a plaintiff-only injunction.
Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island vacated four U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services policies that had suspended the processing of immigration benefits for nationals of 39 countries listed under the Trump administration's travel ban framework [1]. The ruling, issued June 5, 2026, runs 135 pages and holds the policies unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act [2]. Among the voided measures is a global asylum adjudication hold that operated independently of the country-specific freeze [1].
The case, Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS, was brought by a Providence-based refugee resettlement and immigration services organization challenging the USCIS directives as arbitrary, capricious, and exceeding agency authority [1]. Chief Judge McConnell, sitting in Providence, granted the plaintiffs relief at the merits stage, not on a preliminary injunction motion, meaning the court's analysis rested on a fully developed record [2]. USCIS, as a component of the Department of Homeland Security, is the named federal respondent.
The remedy is the ruling's most consequential feature. Rather than issuing a party-specific injunction shielding only the named plaintiffs, Chief Judge McConnell ordered vacatur of the policies themselves under the APA [3]. Vacatur, as a remedy, effectively nullifies the agency action across the board, potentially restoring adjudication for hundreds of thousands of applicants whose cases had been suspended [1]. That approach diverges from the narrower injunctive relief that courts have increasingly favored following the Supreme Court's signals about the limits of universal injunctions, and it will draw close scrutiny on appeal [3]. Critics of broad vacatur argue it bypasses the party-standing analysis that cabins injunctive relief; defenders contend the APA's text compels setting aside unlawful agency action without geographic or plaintiff-class limitation [3].
The government is expected to appeal to the First Circuit, and the durability of the vacatur remedy will likely become the central issue [2]. If the First Circuit sustains the ruling, it could reinforce a circuit-level endorsement of nationwide APA vacatur in immigration contexts at a moment when courts remain divided on the doctrine's post-CASA contours [3]. Applicants from the 39 affected countries, including those with pending employment-based and family-based petitions, may see their cases reactivated pending any appellate stay [1]. No stay was immediately reported as of the ruling date.