The Trump administration implemented a suspension of immigrant visa issuance for 75 countries, including Brazil, as part of its immigration policy. Based on the premise that individuals from these countries would require greater public assistance upon arrival, the measure was intended to preserve American wealth and enforce higher screening standards. Even when consular officials deemed visa applicants self-sufficient, the ban on granting visas remained broadly in effect. According to an NPR report (https://www.npr.org/2026/08/22/nx-s1-5941765/trump-immigration-visa-ban-75-countries), a U.S. diplomatic cable instructed consular offices to deny visas even to applicants who had already been approved but whose printed documents had not yet left the consulate.

Finding that this policy violated the law and exceeded the authority of the Secretary of State, U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas (Southern District of New York) struck down the ban, revoking all visa denials based exclusively on this measure. According to Vargas, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 expressly prohibits discrimination based on nationality in the issuance of immigrant visas—the very principle upon which the Trump administration's visa suspension was based.

The court ruling sparked various reactions. A State Department spokesperson told NPR that the administration remains committed to protecting the American people through rigorous vetting standards, while noting the policy of not commenting on ongoing litigation. Conversely, the lawyers representing the plaintiffs hailed the verdict.

According to advocates from major legal support organizations, the Trump administration's measure violates legal, human, and factual principles. The economic rationale allegedly reveals a prejudiced view regarding the use of public resources and discriminatory national selectivity—violating the principle of legality—while also nullifying the right to a fair individual assessment. Furthermore, the measure would exacerbate direct social consequences through the arbitrary separation of families who had strictly adhered to legal procedures. In short, these analyses maintain that the visa suspension not only lacked empirical grounding and legal compliance but also inflicted a disproportionate humanitarian impact on applicants.

The lawsuit that led to the measure's annulment was filed by a diverse coalition. Plaintiffs included immigration legal service providers—such as the Catholic Legal Immigration Network and African Communities Together—as well as six U.S. citizens who had filed family-based petitions and five individuals who had filed employment-based petitions. Following the court's ruling, the plaintiffs' attorneys confirmed that their clients would be able to proceed with their respective immigration cases.

It is important to note that the visa suspension is part of a broader effort to curb immigration to the country, regardless of legal status. In June of this year, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional right to birthright citizenship, rejecting a Trump executive order that sought to deny this right to children of parents who had entered the country illegally or who were living and working there legally on temporary visas. This is just one example of many initiatives supporting this effort and reinforcing the administration's anti-immigration policy.