Lawsuit Challenges Trump Administration’s Immigration Policies

Labor unions, university faculty groups, and immigrant advocates have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration regarding two immigration policies. These policies, they argue, make it more difficult for some immigrants already in the U.S. to obtain green cards without leaving the country. The case, initiated on October 5 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, targets policies issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in May and August. These policies impact the adjustment of status process, which lets eligible immigrants apply for permanent residence without needing to secure an immigrant visa at a U.S. consulate abroad.

The lawsuit’s plaintiffs contend that the policies alter the requirements for those already seeking permanent residence. They warn that someone who applied before the policy enactment might now face denial under new criteria, without getting a chance to present further evidence.

Challenged Changes

The May policy requires USCIS officers to consider if an applicant opted for a domestic green card process rather than consular processing abroad. Additionally, the August policy grants officers the power to deny applications without requesting additional evidence or notifying applicants first. This affects both new and pending applications.

The Trump administration has revised the legal immigration framework as part of its broader deportation initiative. This includes the repeal of a public-charge rule from the Biden era and new criteria by USCIS concerning applicants dependent on government benefits, which the administration claims aim to encourage self-reliance and uphold immigration laws.

The lawsuit encompasses groups like the American Association of University Professors with its Harvard and Boston University sectors, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and its affiliates, Americans for Immigrant Justice, and six individual applicants for green cards. These groups represent sectors including academics and service workers, as well as individuals whose close family members are seeking green cards.

Basis for the Complaint

Adjustment of status is a pathway allowing eligible immigrants already in the U.S. to seek permanent residency without traveling abroad. Consular processing, the criticized alternative in the lawsuit, typically involves completing the visa process at a U.S. consulate overseas.

USCIS’s May policy characterizes adjustment as a ‘discretionary’ relief form. Although not everyone is required to leave the country, plaintiffs argue the policy unfairly penalizes immigrants’ choice to utilize a legitimate process.

The August rule presents issues for those with pending cases, where applicants could face denial under new guidelines without being offered a chance to submit pertinent evidence. The administration insists that the adjustment of status is a matter of discretion, claiming Congress generally anticipated temporary immigrants would leave after fulfilling their stay purpose if they aimed for permanent residency.

The process constitutes a large portion of legal immigration. In the 2024 fiscal year, DHS data cited within the complaint shows 782,800 of around 1.36 million people becoming lawful permanent residents achieved this via adjustment of status.

Rationale for Halting the Policies

Plaintiffs argue that USCIS lacks the rightful authority to penalize immigrants for choosing adjustment of status over abroad processing. The adjustment process was legislated in 1952, repeatedly amended, deliberately allowing eligible immigrants an avenue for residency without leaving the U.S., with Congress never mandating an overseas application.

The lawsuit comprises six allegations, asserting that USCIS’s policies overstep its authority, wrongly apply new standards to pending cases, are arbitrary, breach federal rulemaking requirements, clash with established immigration precedents, and infringe on due process rights. The court has yet to provide a judgment on these claims.

The plaintiffs highlight potential consequences, such as family separation and disruption to employment and education if applicants must proceed abroad. One plaintiff, Maria Francisca Guardado, was denied in September despite eligibility for adjustment, citing her immigration history and alleged disclosure failures in prior applications. Another plaintiff, Miriam Esther Moreno Coto, with U.S. citizen children, faces similar challenges, including separation due to the necessity to seek residency abroad.

‘Congress set up a system allowing eligible individuals already in the U.S. to pursue permanent residency without destabilizing their lives,’ Skye Perryman, from Democracy Forward, stated. ‘The executive can’t change this system and treat lawful actions as denial grounds,’ she emphasized.

According to Todd Wolfson of the American Association of University Professors, these policies jeopardize the green card process and threaten immigrants, disrupting scientific progress and destabilizing institutions benefiting from global expertise.

Future Legal Steps

The plaintiffs seek a temporary halt to these policies during the case, aiming ultimately to nullify them. They request the court instruct USCIS to adjudicate affected applications based on existing Board of Immigration Appeals guidelines. A ruling on claims that the policies infringe on federal immigration law, the Administrative Procedure Act, or the Constitution is still pending.