Trump administration suffers double legal setback over immigration rules | Donald Trump News
Legal Challenges Emerge Against Trump Administration’s Immigration Restrictions
Published September 15, 2026
The Trump administration faces significant legal hurdles in its immigration policies as a federal judge has issued a ruling against proposed visa limitations and a coalition of Democratic-led states has initiated lawsuits targeting wider restrictions on residency.
On Monday, U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV imposed a temporary block on a regulation from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that would limit the duration of stay for foreign students and journalists. The ruling was a response to an injunction sought by a coalition of trade unions and educational advocacy groups.
The halted regulation aimed to cap F visas for international students and J visas for exchange visitors at four years. Furthermore, it sought to restrict I visas for journalists to a maximum of 240 days, down from the current duration that can extend for multiple years.
In his ruling, Judge Saylor, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush, characterized the administration’s justification for the proposed changes—rooted in national security and fraud prevention—as “exceptionally weak.” He highlighted the significant contributions of international scholars to research and the U.S. economy, warning that the regulation would have “catastrophic” effects on both higher education and economic growth. The measures could potentially impact approximately 1.6 million international students and 500,000 exchange visitors currently in the U.S.
In a separate legal development, two lawsuits were filed in Manhattan federal court on Monday to contest another DHS regulation slated to take effect later this week. This new rule seeks to expand the criteria under which immigration officials can classify applicants as “public charges,” a designation historically applied to individuals likely to become heavily reliant on government assistance.
New York, California, and Illinois are spearheading a coalition of 22 states, along with the District of Columbia, in challenging the regulation. They are joined by a lawsuit from six cities and counties.
Under the policies of the Biden administration, immigration officers were permitted to consider cash benefits while evaluating green card applicants but were prohibited from penalizing those using non-cash benefits, such as food assistance and Medicaid. The Trump administration now aims to revisit early-term policies that treat non-cash assistance as a disqualifying factor and to broaden scrutiny to include benefits received by applicants’ family members.
A spokesperson for the DHS defended the regulation, suggesting that the plaintiffs—a collection of “left-wing leaders”—are reacting to concerns about potential loss of federal funding resulting from noncitizens withdrawing from welfare programs.
In response, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani condemned the proposed rule, stating that it would push immigrant families away from vital support programs historically available to them. The lawsuits assert that the Trump administration has overstepped its legal authority by attempting to circumvent Congress, which holds exclusive rights to establish permanent residency criteria. By targeting applicants who legally utilize non-cash assistance, they argue the administration has enacted a restriction that contradicts existing federal statutes.
