A federal judge has blocked a Trump administration policy that froze the processing of thousands of immigration benefit applications, issuing a sharply worded opinion that pointed to past statements by President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance as evidence supporting the court’s conclusions.
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley granted a preliminary injunction ordering the administration to resume processing work authorization and green card applications that had been placed on indefinite hold for applicants from several countries.
The ruling affects immigrants who are already legally in the United States and were seeking immigration benefits through existing legal channels.
Judge Marbley concluded that the administration lacked the legal authority to impose an open-ended freeze on processing those applications, distinguishing the policy from the executive branch’s authority over border admissions.
The administration’s pause applied to applicants from several countries, including Burma, Canada, Iran, Nigeria, Syria, Tanzania, and Venezuela, leaving many workers, students, researchers, health care professionals, and families waiting indefinitely for decisions.
But the legal authority behind the policy was only part of the judge’s analysis.
Marbley’s opinion also examined years of public statements by Trump and Vance, concluding they provided important context for evaluating the administration’s immigration actions.
The judge cited Trump’s previous remarks describing certain nations as “shithole countries” and his repeated claims that immigrants from some countries were “poisoning the blood” of the United States.
Based on those statements and other evidence discussed in the opinion, Marbley wrote that Trump “clearly prefers white people” over immigrants from regions including Africa, the Caribbean, South America, and parts of Asia.
The ruling also focused on comments made by Vice President JD Vance during the 2024 campaign regarding Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio.
Marbley referenced widely circulated claims alleging Haitian immigrants were stealing and eating household pets—claims that local officials found no evidence to support.
The opinion also quoted Vance’s later statement defending his rhetoric.
“If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do.”
Marbley cited that remark while discussing what he described as the administration’s reliance on “made-up stories” in the broader immigration debate.
The judge concluded that the record presented to the court raised serious concerns that the administration’s policy may have been influenced by discriminatory motives rather than lawful immigration objectives.
As a result, the court ordered the government to resume processing the affected applications while the lawsuit continues.
The decision is not a final ruling on the legality of the policy, but it prevents the administration from enforcing the freeze unless a higher court intervenes.
The Trump administration is expected to appeal.
The case is likely to become another closely watched legal battle over the scope of presidential authority on immigration, particularly whether the executive branch can suspend routine immigration processing without clear statutory authorization.
