A New York judge voids the visa freeze as mail-in ballot rules run into a second court block
One judge found the immigrant visa freeze covering 75 countries unlawful. Despite two injunctions from another federal judge, the Postal Service published its mail-in ballot rules as a final draft.
Geopolitics··Midday
Judge finds the 75-country visa freeze unlawful
Judge Jeannette Vargas of the Southern District of New York ruled that a policy in force since January, which suspended immigrant visa processing for nationals of 75 countries, was unlawful. Vargas wrote that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had exceeded his statutory authority and that consular officers had been told to refuse visas solely on nationality even when an applicant was otherwise eligible. Her ruling vacates visa denials based only on the policy. Afghanistan, Brazil, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Thailand and Yemen were among the countries covered.[1]
The government had defended the policy on public-charge grounds
The State Department had defended the freeze as a way to prevent immigrants from countries it considered high-risk from improperly using welfare or becoming a public charge. The court instead treated the blanket instruction to refuse applicants by nationality, rather than on their individual circumstances, as an excess of statutory authority. The ruling removes the policy as a stand-alone basis for refusal. At the time of the report, the government retained the option to appeal.[1]
Postal Service publishes a final draft despite two injunctions
The US Postal Service published a 95-page final draft requiring states to identify voters who request mail-in ballots and to redesign ballot envelopes with tracking barcodes. District Judge Indira Talwani had blocked the same plan with preliminary injunctions in June and again on 11 August, writing that enfranchisement outweighed the executive's attempt to enter the field of election regulation. Leaders from 23 states and the District of Columbia challenged the plan, which rests on a March executive order. The Postal Service argued that the requirements were not election administration and did not usurp state resources.[2]
