For months, thousands of immigrants found themselves trapped in one of America’s most enduring traditions: waiting for paperwork while wondering whether anyone in Washington had misplaced it under a stack of memos.
Now, after a series of federal court rulings, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has been ordered to resume processing work permits and other immigration benefits that had been frozen for applicants from dozens of countries. The decision marks the latest twist in an immigration saga that has ricocheted between administrative policy and the federal courts, which proves that, even in America, bureaucracy can develop cliffhangers.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Virginia DeMarchi, who served in the federal district court in San Jose, California, recently ordered USCIS to restart processing employment authorization applications, known as I-765 forms, for noncitizens from 39 countries that the government had designated as “high risk.”
This term “high risk” is used by government officials to describe nations that they believed posed greater national-security or public-safety concerns. However, critics and even some judges have noted that the administration never publicly laid out a clear, transparent formal explanation as to how the countries earned this label. The policies were tied to two presidential proclamations: 10949 issued in June 2025, and 10998 issued in December 2025. One reason the lawsuits succeeded is because critics argued USCIS never fully explained how those standards were applied or why entire nationalities were subjected to blanket freezes.
The ruling followed an earlier decision by Chief U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of Rhode Island that struck down several policies. The freeze itself emerged from a broader set of immigration policies implemented during the Trump administration, such as expanding travel restrictions, expanded screening vetting, and suspending certain green-card and work-permit decisions. Trump administration and DHS officials, including USCIS Director Joseph Edlow, argued that additional scrutiny was necessary to protect national security and prevent fraud. Critics, however, contended that the measures effectively created an indefinite limbo for people who had already complied with the legal immigration system. And limbo, as anyone who has spent time at the DMV can attest, is rarely improved by adding more forms.
How the Freeze Began
The first pause affected refugees and people granted asylum from around the world, before later policies expanded scrutiny to nationals from 39 countries subject to new travel restrictions. Immigration advocates and attorneys struggled to understand the scope of the policy, in part because the government released little public information explaining exactly how the freeze would operate. Seeking answers, the American Immigration Council and the American Immigration Lawyers Association filed Freedom of Information Act requests and later pursued litigation to uncover internal records. Documents obtained through those efforts suggested that the processing pauses were broader and more complicated than many applicants initially realized.
The policy eventually expanded. By late 2025 and early 2026, USCIS had instituted holds affecting applicants from dozens of countries subject to travel restrictions, while also implementing additional reviews of previously approved cases. The travel bands imposed different levels of restrictions depending on the country. Some were fully banned to some being faced with partial restrictions. In some instances, applications that had already cleared multiple layers of vetting were sent back for reconsideration.
For the people caught in the middle, the consequences were immediate. Employment authorization renewals stalled. Green card applications languished. Naturalization ceremonies were postponed. Families who believed they finally completed years of screening, interviews, and paperwork suddenly discovered that the government had added another checkpoint.
The Courts Step In
On June 5, Chief Judge John McConnell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island delivered a sweeping rebuke to the administration’s approach, invalidating four USCIS policies that had suspended immigration benefits for nationals of 39 countries.
The ruling did more than restore work permit processing. It also struck down policies that paused decisions on green cards, citizenship applications, and asylum claims. Required blanket re-reviews of immigration benefits that had already been approved. Treated nationality from certain countries as a negative factor in immigration decisions. Expanded a system of country-specific restrictions beyond what federal immigration law permits.
The court concluded that USCIS could not simply place entire categories of applicants into administrative purgatory because of where they were born. Judges emphasized that federal law requires immigration applications to be adjudicated and that agencies must provide decisions rather than indefinite delays.
Legal experts described the ruling as one of the most significant immigration decisions of the year because it reaffirmed a basic principle: agencies possess broad discretion, but not unlimited authority.
In bureaucratic terms, the court essentially told USCIS that “we’ll get back to you eventually” is not an official legal standard.
What Happens Next?
USCIS is now required to resume processing many of the applications that had been frozen. For thousands of immigrants, that means work permits can once again move forward and long-stalled cases may finally begin inching toward resolution. But significant uncertainty remains.
Immigration attorneys warn that restarting the machinery is not the same thing as clearing the backlog. Months of suspended processing have created bottlenecks that could take years to untangle. Former USCIS officials have cautioned that extensive re-screening procedures and staffing constraints may continue to slow the system even after the court orders.
Meanwhile, the legal battle is far from over. The government has already sought to preserve portions of the policies while appeals continue, setting the stage for another round of courtroom disputes over the scope of executive authority in immigration enforcement.
For applicants waiting on life-changing decisions, the distinction between “paused,” “resumed,” and “under review” may feel largely academic. The paperwork still must move. The approvals still must arrive. Employers still need workers, families still need certainty, and immigrants who followed the rules still want answers.
The federal courts have made one thing clear: immigration policy can change with an election, a memo, or a judicial order. What should not change, judges have argued, is the government’s obligation to process the applications sitting on its desk. Because for thousands of people navigating America’s immigration system, the dream was never instant approval. It was simply to stop hearing, “Your case remains pending.”