A federal judge in Ohio has dealt a significant legal setback to a key
immigration policy of the Trump administration, raising new questions
about the government’s authority to delay immigration benefits based on
an applicant’s country of birth. While the ruling has generated
considerable attention among immigrant communities, it does not directly
apply to Bangladeshi nationals. Still, immigration experts say it could
have broader implications for future legal challenges.
On July 6, U.S. District Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the Southern District of Ohio issued a preliminary injunction blocking the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) from enforcing a controversial policy against 25 immigrants who had filed suit in federal court.
The plaintiffs, all of whom are lawfully residing in the United States, argued that USCIS had unlawfully placed their applications for employment authorization, adjustment of status (green cards), and other immigration benefits on indefinite hold solely because of their
countries of birth.
Judge Marbley emphasized that the case was not about President Donald Trump’s constitutional authority to restrict entry into the United States. Instead, the central legal question was whether USCIS has the statutory authority to adopt a policy that indefinitely delays immigration benefit applications by treating an applicant’s nationality
as a significant negative factor.
In his 69-page opinion, the judge also rejected the administration’s argument that the policy was shielded from judicial review under national security considerations. He wrote that national security cannot serve as a blanket justification to avoid legal scrutiny.
Judge Marbley noted that several other federal courts—including those in California, Massachusetts, Arkansas, Maryland, Indiana, and most recently Rhode Island—have reached similar conclusions, finding comparable USCIS policies to be inconsistent with federal law.
The opinion also discusses previous public statements by President Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance concerning immigrants from Africa, the Caribbean, South America, and Asia, including widely criticized comments regarding Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio. However, Judge Marbley made clear that those remarks were included only as background and were not essential to his legal reasoning. His decision rests primarily on the conclusion that USCIS exceeded its authority under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The 25 plaintiffs come from Myanmar, Canada, Iran, Nigeria, Syria, Tanzania, and Venezuela. They include professionals such as hospital pharmacists, registered nurses, cancer researchers, university professors, and engineers.
Importantly, the injunction applies only to these 25 plaintiffs while the litigation continues. It does not invalidate the broader travel restrictions or provide nationwide relief. The court also ordered the federal government to submit a written compliance report within 30 days
explaining how it is implementing the court’s order.
Only a day has passed since the ruling, and as of publication, the Trump administration has not formally announced an appeal. However, legal analysts believe the administration is likely to challenge the decision before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, particularly because multiple federal courts have recently ruled against similar USCIS policies.
One notable example is a recent decision in Boston by U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick, who found a similar policy unlawful in a case involving approximately 200 immigrants from about 20 countries. These repeated defeats are creating increasing legal pressure on the
administration, and many observers believe the issue could ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
A critical distinction is important for Bangladeshi readers.
The Ohio case involves plaintiffs from countries covered by the Trump administration’s 2025 travel restrictions, which imposed full or partial entry bans on nationals of 39 countries, including Iran, Syria, and Myanmar. Bangladesh is not included on that 39-country travel ban list.
Bangladesh, however, is affected by a separate State Department policy that took effect on January 21, 2026. Under that policy, immigrant visa processing for nationals of 75 countries—including Bangladesh—has been indefinitely suspended based on concerns related to the “public charge” doctrine.
That suspension applies only to immigrant visa applicants processing their cases abroad. According to publicly available information, it does not affect nonimmigrant visas such as tourist, student, or temporary
employment visas.
As a result, the Ohio ruling does not directly benefit Bangladeshi
nationals because it addresses a different USCIS policy tied
specifically to the 39-country travel restriction.
Nevertheless, immigration attorneys note that the decision reinforces an
emerging legal trend. Federal courts are increasingly questioning
whether immigration agencies can lawfully delay or deny benefits based
primarily on an applicant’s nationality without clear statutory
authority.
That reasoning could eventually influence future litigation involving
the separate 75-country immigrant visa suspension, including cases
affecting Bangladeshi applicants. However, any relief for Bangladeshis
would likely require separate legal challenges or a broader nationwide
court ruling.
For now, the practical impact remains limited. The injunction protects
only the 25 named plaintiffs, not all immigrants or all affected
nationalities. Bangladesh remains outside the scope of this specific
lawsuit, and the separate immigrant visa suspension affecting
Bangladeshi applicants remains in effect. Whether future court decisions
will extend similar legal protections to nationals of the 75 affected
countries remains an open question.
