A Day of Hope in Washington, D.C.
McBean Law Stands for Families Affected by the 75-Country Visa Pause

On July 21, 2026, the McBean Law LIFT team stood before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to advocate for 82 of our clients from all over the world whose lives have been placed on hold by the government’s unprecedented 75-country visa pause.  

The pause, implemented by the U.S. government on January 21, 2026, has resulted in the suspension or significant restriction of immigrant visa processing for individuals from 75 designated countries, leaving many applicants who have followed the legal immigration process facing uncertainty, prolonged separation from loved ones, and delays in pursuing their plans to come to the United States. 

For many, immigration is discussed in terms of policies, executive actions, and court filings. But behind every case number is a family waiting to reunite, a spouse counting the days apart, a child growing up without a parent, a student whose future is uncertain, or an employer unable to bring critical talent to the United States. These are not abstract legal issues. They are deeply human ones. 

At McBean Law, we believe that immigration litigation is about more than winning legal arguments. It is about changing lives. That is why our mission is LIFT—Litigating Immigration for Freedom Today. Every lawsuit we file is driven by a commitment to challenge unlawful government action, protect due process, and fight for the freedom of immigrants and their families to move forward with their lives. That mission was on full display in Washington, D.C., as we continued advocating for those impacted by the 75-country visa pause. 

A Significant Hearing Before Judge Trevor N. McFadden 

The case is being heard by Judge Trevor N. McFadden, a United States District Judge for the District of Columbia, appointed in 2017. Throughout the July 21 hearing, Judge McFadden demonstrated a thorough familiarity with the record and the legal issues presented. The hearing centered on the plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, asking the Court to halt enforcement of the visa pause while the litigation proceeds. 

The pause was initiated last January based on the administration’s claim that applicants from the 75 designated countries present a higher risk of becoming a “public charge” than applicants from other nations. In a directive issued by Secretary Marco Rubio, consular officers were instructed to pause the issuance of immigrant visas pending further review until the new public charge screening tools and/or policies are released. However, those tools and policies have yet to be defined or implemented.  

Under U.S. immigration law, the “public charge” ground of inadmissibility refers to a determination that an applicant is likely to become primarily dependent on the government for certain forms of public assistance or care, based on factors such as financial resources, health, age, family status, and other circumstances. The lack of clarity surrounding the new screening process has left applicants and practitioners without guidance on how these reviews will be conducted.  

One of the most significant moments of the hearing came when Judge McFadden questioned the government’s attorneys about the nature of the visa pause. The government originally described the policy as a temporary measure, initially referencing review periods of 60 and 90 days. The pause is not just continuing; it is indefinite.

As of today, the government’s attorneys could not provide any timeline for when it will end, leaving those impacted in limbo and waiting for answers that may not come anytime soon. Judge McFadden questioned how a policy introduced as temporary could effectively become open-ended without a clear endpoint. His questions reflected concern over whether such an indefinite suspension is consistent with the government’s own stated rationale. 

The Court also focused on an important legal issue: whether Secretary of State Marco Rubio possesses the legal authority to direct individual U.S. consulates around the world to suspend visa processing in the manner challenged by the plaintiffs. Secretary Marco Rubio, who currently serves as the United States Secretary of State, oversees the Department of State and U.S. diplomatic missions abroad, including consular operations.  

While the Secretary has broad authority over the administration of consular operations, there is a question about whether that authority extends to an indefinite suspension of visa processing, particularly in light of the fact that the issuance of visas is governed by the Immigration and Nationality Act and the broader immigration laws established by Congress. 

While no ruling was issued during the hearing, these discussions highlighted the Court’s careful examination of both the statutory authority underlying the policy and its practical implementation. 

Moving Toward an Expedited Resolution

Following procedural discussions with counsel, the court is expected to proceed in an expedited manner to resolve the legal issues of the case.  During the hearing, the Court also discussed the potential scope of relief that may be appropriate if the plaintiffs ultimately prevail, including whether broader relief affecting the challenged policy may be warranted. While no decision has been issued, the Court’s questions demonstrated a careful review of the legal issues presented and the significant impact of the challenged policy. 

This is encouraging for the thousands of individuals and families affected by this policy. An accelerated schedule recognizes the extraordinary consequences that continued delays have on applicants who have already waited months even years for their immigration cases to move forward. 

McBean Law’s Commitment

At McBean Law, LIFT—Litigating Immigration for Freedom Today—is more than a slogan; it is the foundation of our practice. We are committed to using the courts to challenge unlawful government action, protect due process, and advocate for immigrants and their families when policies unfairly stand in the way of opportunity. Our plaintiffs come from different countries and backgrounds, but they share a common experience: they followed the legal process, complied with every government requirement, and now face an indefinite delay through no fault of their own. 

McBean Law remains committed to Litigating Immigration for Freedom Today.