Catholic Legal Coalition Challenges U.S. Suspension of Immigration From 75 Countries
A Catholic legal network and several immigration advocacy organizations have filed a federal lawsuit challenging the U.S. government’s decision to suspend immigrant visa processing for nationals of 75 countries, disputing the administration’s claim that migrants from those nations disproportionately rely on public benefits.
The policy, announced in January by the U.S. State Department, paused immigrant visa processing for what it described as “Nationalities at High Risk of U.S. Public Benefits Reliance.” Officials stated that the freeze would remain in place until authorities could ensure that new immigrants would not extract wealth from the American public. The measure effectively affects nearly 40 percent of the world’s countries.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under the case name CLINIC v. Rubio, was brought by a coalition that includes the Catholic Legal Immigration Network and other nonprofit legal groups, along with individual U.S. citizens. Plaintiffs argue that the policy unlawfully separates families and conflicts with immigration statutes enacted by Congress.
Charles Wheeler, a senior attorney with the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, said the case centers on family unity. He contended that halting lawful immigration processing for nearly half the world undermines the legal framework prioritizing family reunification and contradicts principles central to Catholic social teaching. He also argued that the administration has not provided evidence to support its claim that immigrants from the targeted countries are more likely to become public charges.
The complaint asserts that many immigrants are barred from accessing federal cash welfare programs for years after arrival and, in some cases, remain ineligible indefinitely. It calls the government’s public charge justification unsupported and factually incorrect.
Independent research groups have entered the debate. The Cato Institute recently published an analysis suggesting that immigrants, on average, use public benefits at lower rates than native born Americans when measured at the individual level. Its researchers argue that immigrants are often ineligible for certain programs and tend to have high workforce participation rates.
Other organizations, including the Center for Immigration Studies, have presented alternative findings based on household level data, claiming that households headed by immigrants may show higher benefit usage. The differing methodologies have fueled discussion among policy analysts about how best to measure welfare participation.
As of late February, the federal government had not formally responded to the lawsuit in court. The outcome could shape the future of immigration enforcement and public charge standards, issues that have repeatedly generated legal and political controversy.
Church leaders and Catholic legal advocates say the case reflects broader concerns about balancing border enforcement with humanitarian principles, the rule of law, and the preservation of family life.
