2026年8月22日 美国东部时间下午4:27 / 福克斯新闻
法官珍妮特·巴尔加斯指示政府重新审理那些依据75国冻结政策被拒签的案件
作者：伊莱恩·马伦 福克斯新闻
最高法院支持特朗普移民改革议程
最高法院为唐纳德·特朗普总统带来两项重要移民胜利，允许政府终止超过100万移民的临时保护身份，并限制美墨边境的 asylum 申请。大法官塞缪尔·阿利托的多数意见称“法律文本清晰明确”，而索尼娅·索托马约尔大法官的异议意见则警告此举将加剧暴力。
新功能：您现在可以收听福克斯新闻文章！
blob:https://www.foxnews.com/056603a6-c409-42d9-88ee-9f37533d379f
收听本文
时长4分钟
一名联邦法官周五裁定特朗普政府对75个国家的移民签证冻结政策无效，认定国务卿马可·卢比奥缺乏法律权力，对本应符合美国入境条件的申请人直接拒签。
美国地区法官珍妮特·巴尔加斯是拜登任命的法官，办公地点位于曼哈顿，她宣布废除该国务院政策以及所有仅依据该政策作出的拒签决定，并指示政府重新审理相关案件。
“本院认为，该政策违反法律，且超出了卢比奥国务卿的法定权限，”巴尔加斯在其长达61页的判决意见中写道。
国务院于今年1月出台该政策，暂停向被该部门认定为极易依赖公共福利的75个国家的公民发放移民签证。这份名单涵盖非洲、拉美、加勒比地区、东欧、东南亚和中东国家。
博阿斯伯格在言论自由争端中再次给特朗普带来移民挫折
档案照片：美国国务卿马可·卢比奥的政策要求领事官员对每位申请人进行单独审查。（奇普·索莫德维拉/盖蒂图片社）
卢比奥的政策要求领事官员对每位申请人进行单独审查。但即便有申请人通过了该审查，提交了“额外证据证明其能够克服公共福利拒签限制”，且没有其他拒签理由，只要他们来自75个指定国家之一，仍会被拒签。
“尽管该政策允许领事官员在一定范围内行使正常职能，但他们对受该政策约束的申请人资格作出的任何决定最终都无关紧要，”巴尔加斯写道。“结果早已注定，签证将被拒签。”
法官表示，该指令实际上对全球近40%的国家实施了基于国籍的移民禁令，剥夺了国会授权的领事官员决定个别申请人是否符合签证资格的权力。
联邦法官裁定特朗普10万美元H-1B签证费违宪，称其为非法税收
“该政策因此取代了国会在签证发放程序中赋予领事官员的角色，”巴尔加斯写道。
“除其他缺陷外，该政策还超出了《移民与国籍法》赋予国务卿的法定权限，”巴尔加斯继续说道。“具体而言，卢比奥国务卿发给领事官员的、要求他们‘必须拒签’特定国家国民的电报，无法与国会对国务卿权限的明确限制相协调。”
特朗普政府一直在积极撤销外国公民的签证，2025年已撤销10万份签证。（照片由哈里·汉堡/纽约每日新闻档案通过盖蒂图片社提供）（照片由亚伦·施瓦茨/法新社通过盖蒂图片社提供）
特朗普政府辩称，这些拒签是合法的，因为官员们是依据《移民与国籍法》第221(g)条正式作出拒签决定的，该条款是现有管理签证拒签的规定。巴尔加斯驳回了这一理由，称政府未能找到一项法律允许官员向已被认定符合资格的申请人拒签。
“政府的做法充其量只能被描述为奥威尔式的逻辑，”巴尔加斯写道。
她认定该政策违反了《移民与国籍法》禁止在移民签证发放中基于国籍歧视的条款，以及仅在申请人不符合法定资格时才可拒签的规定。她写道，政府的做法造成了“基于国籍的有害区分”。
巴尔加斯还驳回了政府的辩称，即该政策保留了领事官员的权限，因为他们仍会自行录入拒签决定。
“强制拒签最终由领事官员执行这一事实，几乎不意味着领事官员在法定框架中的角色未被篡夺，”她写道。
特朗普政府因针对外国学生、记者的签证时间限制遭起诉
马可·卢比奥与护照同框；国务院已为签证申请人引入最新审查程序。（照片由安德鲁·哈尼克/盖蒂图片社/istock拍摄）（安德鲁·哈尼克/盖蒂图片社/istock）
法官将该政策与最高法院2018年维持特朗普第一任期旅行禁令的裁决区分开来。巴尔加斯指出，当时的案件涉及总统对入境人员的权限，而本案的核心是国务院能否拒签那些在法律上符合资格的申请人的移民签证。
该裁定并未废止基于其他独立不合格理由的签证拒签，但彻底取消了仅依据75国冻结政策作出的拒签决定，并将相关案件发回政府，要求根据本判决进行进一步程序。
该诉讼由天主教法律移民网络公司（CLINIC）、哈莱姆区的移民倡导组织非洲社区共同组织（ACT）、5名潜在就业类移民以及6名试图将家庭成员带到美国的美国公民共同提起。
点击此处下载福克斯新闻应用程序
福克斯新闻数字频道已联系国务院寻求置评。
伊莱恩·马伦是福克斯新闻数字频道和福克斯商业频道的记者，报道全国政治新闻。
Federal judge blasts Rubio’s 75-country visa freeze as ‘Orwellian,’ strikes down policy
August 22, 2026 4:27pm EDT / Fox News
Judge Jeannette Vargas directed the government to revisit cases where applicants were denied under the 75-country freeze
By Elaine Mallon, Fox News
Supreme Court backs Trump immigration reform agenda
The Supreme Court delivers two significant immigration victories for President Donald Trump, allowing the administration to terminate temporary protected status for over a million migrants and restrict asylum claims at the US-Mexico border. Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion states “The text is clear,” while Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent warns of increased violence.
NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!
blob:https://www.foxnews.com/056603a6-c409-42d9-88ee-9f37533d379f
Listen to this article
4 min
A federal judge struck down the Trump administration’s freeze on immigrant visas from 75 countries Friday, ruling Secretary of State Marco Rubio lacked the legal authority to order denials for applicants otherwise found eligible to enter the United States.
U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas, a Biden appointee in Manhattan, vacated the State Department policy and any visa refusals based solely on it, directing the government to revisit those cases.
“The Court holds that the Policy is contrary to law and was issued in excess of Secretary Rubio’s statutory authority, Vargas wrote in her 61-page opinion.
The State Department enacted the policy in January, suspending immigrant-visa issuance to nationals of 75 countries the department deemed at high risk of becoming dependent on public benefits. The list spans Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East.
BOASBERG DELIVERS FRESH IMMIGRATION SETBACK TO TRUMP IN FREE-SPEECH CLASH
FILE – US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s policy told consular officers to review each applicant individually.(Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Rubio’s policy told consular officers to review each applicant individually. But even applicants who passed that review, showed “additional evidence that demonstrates he or she overcomes the public charge refusal” and had no other reason to be denied were still refused visas if they came from one of the 75 designated countries.
“While the Policy permits consular officers to exercise their normal functions up to a point, whatever determinations they make as to eligibility for the applicants subject to the Policy are ultimately irrelevant,” Vargas wrote. “The outcome is predetermined. The visa will be refused.”
The judge said the directive effectively imposed a nationality-based ban on immigrants from nearly 40% of the world’s countries and sidelined the consular officers Congress charged with deciding whether individual applicants qualify for visas.
FEDERAL JUDGE STRIKES DOWN TRUMP’S $100K H-1B VISA FEE, RULING IT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAX
“The Policy thus displaces consular officers from the role Congress assigned them in the visa issuance process,” Vargas wrote.
“In addition to its other defects, the Policy also exceeds the statutory authority that the INA vests in the Secretary of State,” Vargas continued. “Specifically, Secretary Rubio’s Cable directing consular officers that they ‘must refuse’ immigrant visas to nationals of certain countries cannot be reconciled with Congress’s express limitation on his authority as Secretary of State.”
The Trump administration has been aggressive about revoking visas of foreign nationals, having revoked 100,000 visas in 2025((Photo by Harry Hamburg/NY Daily News Archive via Getty Images) (Photo by Aaron Schwartz / AFP via Getty Images))
The Trump administration argued the refusals were lawful because officers formally issued them under Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, an existing provision governing visa refusals. Vargas rejected that rationale, saying the government had failed to identify a law allowing an officer to deny a visa to an applicant already found eligible.
“The Government engages in what is best described as an exercise in Orwellian logic,” Vargas wrote.
She found the policy violated the INA’s bar on nationality-based discrimination in immigrant-visa issuance, as well as provisions allowing visa refusals only when an applicant is legally ineligible. The administration’s approach, she wrote, drew “pernicious distinctions based upon nationality.”
Vargas also rejected the administration’s argument that the policy preserved consular officers’ authority because they still entered the denials themselves.
“The fact that the mandatory visa refusal is ultimately effectuated by the consular officer hardly means that the consular officer’s role in the statutory scheme has not been usurped,” she wrote.
TRUMP ADMIN SUED OVER VISA TIME RESTRICTIONS FOR FOREIGN STUDENTS, JOURNALISTS
Marco Rubio with passports in view; the State Department has introduced updated vetting procedures for visa applicants. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images / istock)(Andrew Harnik/Getty Images / istock)
The judge distinguished the policy from the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling upholding Trump’s first-term travel ban. That case involved presidential authority over who may enter the country, Vargas noted, while this case centered on whether the State Department could refuse immigrant visas to applicants otherwise eligible under the law.
The ruling does not invalidate visa denials based on other independent grounds of ineligibility, but it wipes out refusals based solely on the 75-country freeze and returns those cases to the government for further proceedings consistent with the decision.
The lawsuit was brought by the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC); African Communities Together (ACT), a Harlem-based immigrant advocacy group; five prospective employment-based immigrants; and six U.S. citizens seeking to bring family members to the country.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Fox News Digital reached out to the State Department for comment.
Elaine Mallon is a writer for Fox News Digital and Fox Business covering national politics.
发表回复