By Kelsey Zubkoff, Esq. | May 4, 2026 | 12 min read
Last Updated: May 4, 2026 — This article is updated as new rulings are issued. Litigation is fluid; check back regularly for the latest developments.
As of May 2026, the U.S. immigration system is being reshaped not by Congress, but by the federal courts. For families separated by the January 21, 2026, Immigrant Visa Pause and Presidential Proclamation 10998, the legal battlefield is the only source of hope.
This guide breaks down the major active lawsuits, the specific legal arguments being used, and what these cases mean for your pending visa. Whether you are waiting for a consular interview that has been indefinitely postponed, or you received a 221(g) refusal with no explanation, understanding the litigation landscape is critical to knowing your options.
Related: If your case is affected by the 75-country pause, see our complete guide to the 2026 visa pause and travel ban for the full list of affected countries and practical next steps. For a deep dive on the consular crisis abroad, read Stuck Abroad: Navigating the 75-Country Visa Ban. For domestic delays at USCIS field offices, see Operation PARRIS and the Phoenix Field Office.
1. CLINIC v. Rubio: The Fight Against the 75-Country Visa Ban
Current Status: Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment filed (as of April 24, 2026)
Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
This is the most significant pending lawsuit for family-based immigration in 2026. Filed on February 2, 2026, by a coalition including the Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC), the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), and the Legal Aid Society, this case directly challenges the Department of State's indefinite pause on immigrant visa processing for nationals of 75 countries.
The Legal Arguments
The plaintiffs are advancing three primary theories:
Nationality Discrimination under the INA. The Immigration and Nationality Act explicitly prohibits discrimination against visa applicants based on their nationality. The plaintiffs argue that a blanket pause affecting 75 specific countries — primarily in Africa, Asia, and Latin America — constitutes a de facto nationality ban that violates this statutory prohibition. The government cannot treat all nationals of a country as a monolithic group without individualized assessment.
The "Public Charge" Pretext. The administration has justified the pause as necessary to review "public charge" risks posed by nationals of these countries. The lawsuit argues this rationale is pretextual and legally insufficient. Under existing law, public charge determinations must be made on an individual, case-by-case basis. Applying a blanket presumption to entire nations bypasses the statutory framework Congress established.
Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The State Department implemented this pause through internal "cables" — administrative directives sent to consulates worldwide — without the required public notice or comment period mandated by the APA. The plaintiffs argue this procedural shortcut renders the policy unlawful regardless of its substance.
What Happens Next
As of April 24, 2026, the government submitted its final response and asked the judge to dismiss the plaintiffs' motion and rule in its favor. The judge will now review both sides' arguments and issue a ruling. Legal observers expect a decision by summer 2026.
Why it matters for you: If the judge grants summary judgment for the plaintiffs, the 75-country pause could be vacated (cancelled) nationwide, forcing consulates to resume scheduling interviews immediately. Even a partial victory — such as an injunction requiring individualized assessments — would reopen processing for many families.
2. RAICES v. Noem: Stopping the Asylum "Invasion" Proclamation
Current Status: Victory for Plaintiffs (D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, April 24, 2026)
Court: D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
In a landmark decision on April 24, 2026, the D.C. Circuit ruled that the administration's "Day 1" proclamation — which used Section 212(f) of the INA to shut down the southern border to asylum seekers — is unlawful. The ruling was covered by NPR, PBS, CNN, and the ACLU.
The Court's Ruling
The D.C. Circuit held that while the President has broad power under Section 212(f) to restrict entry of certain classes of aliens, that power does not allow the Executive to override specific laws passed by Congress. The right to seek asylum is established by statute (INA § 208), and no presidential proclamation can eliminate a right that Congress has affirmatively granted.
The court specifically rejected the government's argument that "national security" concerns justified the blanket ban, finding that the proclamation was not a targeted security measure but rather an attempt to circumvent the entire asylum system.
The Broader Impact
This ruling sets a powerful precedent for other 2026 immigration bans. It signals that the federal courts will not allow the President to use Section 212(f) as a blank check to ignore the Immigration and Nationality Act. The government is widely expected to seek an emergency stay or appeal to the Supreme Court, but for now, the ruling stands.
Why it matters for you: If you or a family member has been denied the opportunity to seek asylum based on the Day 1 proclamation, this ruling may reopen that path. Additionally, the legal reasoning applies broadly to other 212(f) actions — including the travel ban affecting 39 countries.
3. The 221(g) "Administrative Processing" Mass Litigation
Targeting: "Silent Refusals" at Embassies in Ghana, Ethiopia, Guatemala, and other affected countries.
We are seeing a surge in "Mass Joinder" lawsuits filed in 2026. Unlike class actions, these involve hundreds of individual plaintiffs suing together to compel the State Department to act on cases stuck in indefinite Administrative Processing.
The Strategy
These lawsuits challenge the "indefinite" nature of 221(g) refusals. Under Section 221(g) of the INA, a consular officer can refuse a visa and request additional documentation or processing. However, the statute does not authorize consulates to hold cases in limbo indefinitely without explanation or timeline.
If you have been Documentarily Qualified (DQ) at the National Visa Center but the consulate refuses to schedule an interview — or if you attended an interview and received a 221(g) refusal months ago with no follow-up — these lawsuits seek a Writ of Mandamus. A mandamus action is a court order compelling a government agency to perform a duty it is legally obligated to perform.
Who Should Consider This Path
Mandamus litigation is most appropriate when:
- Your case has been in administrative processing for 6+ months with no communication
- You have been DQ at NVC but no interview has been scheduled despite the passage of normal processing times
- You received a 221(g) refusal and the consulate has not responded to your submissions
- Your case is not subject to a legitimate security review (in which case the government will argue the court lacks jurisdiction)
Related: See our detailed guide on 221(g) Administrative Processing refusals for a breakdown of what this code means and your options.
4. Presidential Proclamation 10998: The 212(f) "Travel Ban" Challenge
This litigation targets the January 1, 2026, Travel Ban affecting nationals of 39 countries.
The Challenge: Advocates are arguing that the ban is "arbitrary and capricious" under the APA, and that it exceeds the President's statutory authority under Section 212(f). The core argument is that a blanket ban on nationals of 39 countries — without individualized vetting — is not a legitimate exercise of the President's power to restrict entry when he finds that entry "would be detrimental to the interests of the United States."
The Difficulty: Unlike the 75-country pause (which is an administrative policy implemented by the State Department), a Presidential Proclamation under Section 212(f) carries a higher "legal shield." Courts have historically given significant deference to presidential proclamations on immigration. However, following the RAICES v. Noem victory on April 24, legal teams are now filing new challenges arguing that Proclamation 10998 also exceeds the President's statutory authority by effectively rewriting immigration law rather than supplementing it.
Summary of Active Litigation (May 2026)
| Lawsuit | Core Target | Status | Potential Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| CLINIC v. Rubio | 75-Country Visa Pause | Active — Summary judgment briefing complete; decision expected summer 2026 | Could reopen consulates in 75 countries |
| RAICES v. Noem | Border Asylum Ban (212(f)) | Won at D.C. Circuit (April 24, 2026); government likely to appeal to SCOTUS | Re-establishes the right to seek asylum |
| Mandamus Actions | Individual 221(g) Delays | Ongoing in multiple districts | Forces interviews for specific plaintiffs |
| Proclamation 10998 Challenges | 39-Country Travel Ban | Early stages; new filings post-RAICES | Could invalidate the travel ban |
What Should You Do Now?
If your family is affected by any of these policies, here are three concrete steps you should take immediately.
1. Preserve Your Record. If you are refused at an interview or receive a denial, ensure you receive a written notice citing the specific section of law (e.g., Section 212(f), 221(g), or INA § 212(a)). This documentation is essential if you later need to join litigation or file an appeal.
2. Monitor the SDNY Court. The CLINIC v. Rubio case in the Southern District of New York will likely be the "tipping point" for family-based visas this year. A favorable ruling could reopen processing for millions of affected applicants. Follow CLINIC's official updates at cliniclegal.org.
3. Consult with Zubkoff Law. We specialize in analyzing whether your specific case can benefit from these active lawsuits, whether you should join a mass litigation effort, or whether an individual mandamus action is appropriate. Every case is different, and the right strategy depends on your specific circumstances, country of origin, and case history.
Legal Disclaimer: Litigation is fluid. A win in a district court today can be stayed by an appeals court tomorrow. The information in this article is current as of the date published and is provided for educational purposes only. Always consult with a qualified attorney before making travel plans or legal decisions based on news reports.
About the Author
Kelsey A. Zubkoff, Esq. is the founder of Zubkoff Law, a nationally recognized immigration law firm serving clients in all 50 states and over 111 countries. Dual-licensed in Arizona and California, Kelsey specializes in high-stakes immigration litigation including I-601 and I-601A waivers, VAWA self-petitions, marriage-based green cards, and J-1 waiver cases. She has been recognized as a Super Lawyers Rising Star (2024–2026) and featured in Forbes, USA Today, and Business Insider. As the daughter of a Filipino immigrant and granddaughter of a Holocaust survivor, her work is deeply personal. Read Kelsey's full bio →