Federal Judge in Ohio Orders USCIS to Resume Deciding Frozen Green Card and Work Permit Applications, Setting a 30-Day Deadline
In Doe v. Edlow, U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley granted a preliminary injunction requiring the agency to adjudicate the plaintiffs' stalled applications and to decide pending work-permit forms within 30 days; the government is expected to appeal.
A 30-Day Clock on a Months-Long Freeze
A federal judge in Columbus, Ohio, ordered the Trump administration to start deciding immigration applications it had left in limbo for months, giving U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 30 days to rule on pending work-permit requests and report back on its compliance. U.S. District Judge Algenon L. Marbley granted the preliminary injunction on Monday, July 6, 2026, in Doe 1 v. Edlow, a case brought by 25 foreign nationals from Burma, Canada, Iran, Nigeria, Syria, Tanzania and Venezuela, many of whom had lived in the United States for years and had previously held valid work authorization [1]. The order bars USCIS and the Department of Homeland Security from applying the challenged policies to the plaintiffs' pending cases and requires the agency to adjudicate their Form I-765 work-permit applications within 30 days [1][3].
The ruling did not arrive in a vacuum. It followed a June 5, 2026 decision by Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. in Rhode Island, which vacated four related USCIS policies nationwide in a 135-page opinion [2][6]. Marbley's order is narrower — it binds the named plaintiffs in his case rather than issuing a nationwide vacatur — but it adds a second federal court to the list finding the freeze legally unsustainable [3][7]. USCIS has said it "strongly disagrees" with the rulings but will comply, and the government is expected to appeal [1][2].
What Both Sides Agree Happened
The undisputed record starts in December 2025, when USCIS began rolling out policies pausing adjudication of certain immigration benefits and instructing officers to weigh an applicant's nationality from designated countries as a negative factor in discretionary decisions [7][8]. That rollout came weeks after the November 26, 2025 shooting of two West Virginia National Guard members in Washington, D.C., by an Afghan national; one of the guardsmen, Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, died the following day [8]. Four distinct policies were at issue across the litigation: a hold on asylum decisions, a broader benefits hold covering green cards, work permits and naturalization, a re-review of cases USCIS had already approved, and a rule directing officers to treat nationality from countries on the administration's expanded travel-restriction list as a "significant negative factor" [2][6][7].
Both the government and the plaintiffs agree on the basic sequence of events and the substance of the four policies; what they dispute is whether the pause was lawful. Neither ruling lifts the underlying travel ban or the State Department's separate immigrant-visa pause, and neither requires that any individual application be approved — only that USCIS actually decide it, one way or the other [6]. Everyone involved also agrees the numbers are large: tens of thousands to possibly hundreds of thousands of applications sat unresolved for months before either court intervened [2][6].
The Pressure Underneath
Three forces are pulling at this dispute independent of how anyone frames it. The administration's underlying goal is to preserve maximum executive discretion over immigration flows, and a benefits pause achieves that kind of slowdown without needing new legislation from Congress [7][8]. Layered on top of that is the political reality of the moment: the killing of a National Guard member by a foreign national created intense pressure to be seen doing something visible on vetting, which made a broad, blunt pause politically attractive even if it proved legally fragile [8].
Pulling the other way is a structural fact that doesn't bend to political pressure: Congress wrote the relevant statutes to say USCIS "shall" decide many of these applications, and the agency's own funding model depends on processing them [3][4]. That statutory language is the plaintiffs' core leverage — their argument isn't fundamentally about motive, it's about whether an agency can simply stop doing something the law tells it to do. Both courts to rule so far found that it cannot do so indefinitely [3][4].
How Each Side Sees It
The administration's position rests on national security and executive authority. USCIS Director Joseph Edlow grounded the policy in Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and Presidential Proclamation No. 10949, implemented through Policy Alert PA-2025-26, which directed officers to weigh country-specific risk factors in discretionary benefit decisions [7][8]. In this telling, the pause was a prudent, temporary tightening of "basic vetting and screening standards" after a deadly attack, not a categorical denial of anyone's benefits, and courts should defer to the political branches' judgment about which countries the intelligence community deems higher-risk [7][8]. The administration's incentive is to deliver on a core enforcement promise and avoid blame should a future beneficiary of the immigration system commit an attack; an adverse ruling forces it to process a large backlog on a court-imposed timeline and hands opponents legal precedent [1][2].
Plaintiffs and pro-immigration advocates, including the American Immigration Council and Democratic lawmakers such as Sen. Mark Warner, argue that Congress's "shall adjudicate" language makes an indefinite, nationality-based freeze unlawful on its face [3][4][9]. They contend the stated security rationale is pretextual, and Judge Marbley's opinion itself concluded as much, citing what it characterized as anti-immigrant statements from senior officials [3][4]. Advocates emphasize that many affected applicants are long-term U.S. residents who lost jobs and legal status through the pause despite having previously held valid work authorization; their incentive is restoring those applicants' ability to work and establishing that agencies cannot use processing delays as a de facto ban [1][5]. For employers and the families involved, the harm has been concrete regardless of the legal theory — workers with valid, renewable permits were forced off payrolls without any individualized finding that they posed a threat [1].
The courts, for their part, have framed the question more narrowly than either political side: whether USCIS exceeded its statutory authority by indefinitely declining to decide benefits Congress mandated, and whether the agency's stated rationale holds up under the Administrative Procedure Act [3][4]. Marbley specifically distinguished this domestic benefits pause from policies governing entry at the border, where executive discretion is broadest, suggesting the ruling turns on administrative law rather than a wholesale rejection of the government's security concerns [3].
How the Coverage Split
Coverage of the ruling varied sharply by outlet and audience. Legal trade press and center outlets like Courthouse News Service and The Hill stuck to procedural language — "blocks," "vacated" — relying heavily on the opinion text itself and giving relatively little space to either side's spin [2][6]. Newsweek's coverage, while factually accurate, framed the ruling as "another judicial setback" for the administration, a horse-race angle that scores the outcome as a political loss more than it explains the underlying legal test [1].
Advocacy and ideologically distinct outlets went further in each direction. The libertarian Cato Institute headlined its piece around the court's statutory finding, sympathetic to the plaintiffs from a limited-government, pro-legal-immigration stance rather than a partisan one [4]. The American Immigration Council, a party-aligned advocacy group, used celebratory language, quoting an official calling the ruling "an enormous victory" while giving little space to the government's security rationale [5]. International Business Times UK went furthest, leading its headline with the judge's most incendiary language — that the administration "clearly prefers white people" — and devoting minimal space to the government's side at all [10]. Notably, major U.S. right-leaning outlets such as Fox News, the Washington Examiner and National Review gave this specific ruling little visible coverage during the period searched, meaning the loudest voices in the public record were the plaintiffs' side and the government's own official statements rather than a direct rebuttal in conservative media [7][8].
Summary
On Monday, July 6, 2026, U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley in Columbus, Ohio, granted a preliminary injunction ordering the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to resume deciding immigration benefit applications that had been frozen for nationals of countries on the Trump administration's expanded travel-restriction list[1][3]. The case, Doe 1 v. Edlow, was brought by 25 foreign nationals — from Burma, Canada, Iran, Nigeria, Syria, Tanzania and Venezuela — many of whom had lived in the U.S. for years and previously held work authorization[1]. Marbley ordered the government to decide pending work-permit applications (Form I-765) within 30 days and to file a report showing compliance[1][3].
The freeze grew out of policies USCIS rolled out beginning in December 2025, after a November 26, 2025 shooting of two West Virginia National Guard members near the White House by an Afghan national[8]. USCIS Director Joseph Edlow said the agency was tightening vetting and directing officers to treat nationality from certain countries as a 'significant negative factor'[7][8]. Four policies were challenged: an asylum-decision hold, a benefits hold on green cards and work permits, a re-review of already-granted cases, and the country-specific negative-factor rule[2][6].
The core dispute is whether these were lawful security measures or an unlawful, discriminatory pause. The administration says it has authority to strengthen screening to protect Americans[7][8]. The court found the agency lacked statutory power to indefinitely stop deciding benefits Congress said it 'shall' adjudicate, and concluded the stated national-security rationale was 'pretextual,' pointing to what it called anti-immigrant statements by top officials[3][4]. USCIS said it 'strongly disagrees' but would comply, and the government is expected to appeal[1][2]. The ruling does not lift the underlying travel ban or guarantee any application is approved — it only requires decisions be made[6].
The Event
On July 6, 2026, U.S. District Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the Southern District of Ohio granted a preliminary injunction in Doe 1 v. Edlow, a suit by 25 foreign nationals whose green card, work permit and other applications had been paused[1][3]. The order enjoins USCIS and DHS from applying the challenged policies to the plaintiffs' pending applications, requires the agency to adjudicate pending Form I-765 work-permit applications within 30 days, and directs the government to file a compliance report within 30 days[1][3]. The ruling followed a June 5, 2026 decision by Chief Judge John McConnell in Rhode Island that declared four related USCIS policies unlawful and vacated them nationwide[2][6].
Undisputed Facts
- Beginning in December 2025, USCIS issued policies pausing adjudication of certain immigration benefits and directing officers to weigh nationality from designated countries as a negative factor[7][8].
- The policies followed the November 26, 2025 shooting of two West Virginia National Guard members in Washington, D.C., by an Afghan national; one guardsman later died[8].
- Four distinct policies were challenged: an asylum-decision hold, a benefits hold on green cards/work permits/naturalization, a re-review of previously granted cases, and a country-specific negative-factor rule tied to the travel-restriction list[2][6].
- On July 6, 2026, Judge Marbley granted a preliminary injunction and ordered USCIS to decide pending Form I-765 work-permit applications within 30 days and file a compliance report[1][3].
- The 25 plaintiffs are nationals of Burma, Canada, Iran, Nigeria, Syria, Tanzania and Venezuela, and many had lived in the U.S. for years[1].
- A separate June 5, 2026 ruling by Judge McConnell in Rhode Island vacated the four policies nationwide in a 135-page opinion[2][6].
- USCIS said it 'strongly disagrees' with the rulings but would comply, and the government has pursued appeals[1][2].
- The rulings do not lift the State Department's immigrant-visa pause or the underlying travel ban, and do not require that any application be approved — only decided[6].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- Executive control over immigration
- The administration's real driver is asserting maximal executive discretion to slow or stop immigration flows, using security tools that are hard for courts to second-guess; a benefits pause achieves restriction without new legislation[7][8].
- Statutory mandate to adjudicate
- Congress wrote that USCIS 'shall' decide many of these applications, and the agency depends on fees and defined processes; indefinite non-decision collides with that legal architecture, which is the plaintiffs' structural leverage regardless of rhetoric[3][4].
- Post-attack political pressure
- The November 2025 killing of a National Guard member created intense pressure to be seen acting on 'vetting,' making a visible, broad pause politically valuable even if legally fragile[8].
Material realityRegardless of narrative, tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of pending applications sat unresolved for months, and real people with previously valid work permits lost the ability to work; the courts have now ordered decisions on a clock, but the underlying travel ban and immigrant-visa pause remain in force, and appeals to the First Circuit could pause, narrow, or reverse relief[2][6]. A court-ordered decision is not an approval — the agency can still deny individual cases under existing law[6].
Narrative as a weaponThree actors are actively shaping perception. The administration wants you to see a security-minded government stopped by activist judges from protecting Americans after a deadly attack. Immigration advocates and left-leaning and overseas outlets want you to see discriminatory 'bigotry' dressed up as security, with sympathetic long-term residents as victims — with the strongest version amplifying the judge's charged language about racial preference. The courts want you to see a narrower, drier question: whether an agency can indefinitely refuse to decide what Congress told it to decide. Notably, major U.S. right-leaning outlets gave this specific ruling little visible coverage in the searched period, so the loudest voices here are the plaintiffs' side and the government's own official statements.
How Each Side Sees It
Each major actor’s view — how it frames things, its underlying incentive, and how it’s materially affected. Tap a side to read it.
Frames it asThe government argues that protecting Americans is paramount and that the executive branch has broad authority over immigration screening and national security. It casts the pause as a temporary, prudent tightening of 'basic vetting and screening standards' after a deadly attack by a foreign national, not a categorical denial of benefits[7][8]. USCIS grounded the policy in INA §212(f) and Presidential Proclamation No. 10949, directing officers via Policy Alert PA-2025-26 to weigh country-specific factors as 'significant negative factors' in discretionary benefit decisions — framing this as a political-branches judgment courts should not second-guess[7][8]. In its telling, courts should defer to security judgments about applicants from countries the intelligence community deems high-risk.
WhyTo deliver on a core political promise of stricter immigration enforcement, project control over who receives status, and avoid blame for any future attack by a beneficiary of the immigration system[8].
Impact on themAn adverse ruling forces the agency to spend resources adjudicating a large backlog on a court-imposed clock and hands opponents a legal precedent; it also energizes the administration's base by framing judges as obstacles to security policy[1][2].
Frames it asThey argue Congress directed that these applications 'shall' be decided, so an indefinite, nationality-based freeze exceeds the agency's authority and violates the law[3][4]. They contend the security rationale is a pretext for discrimination against people from majority-nonwhite, majority-Muslim countries, many of whom are long-term U.S. residents with prior work authorization now losing jobs and status through no fault of their own[1][5].
WhyTo restore clients' ability to work and remain in the U.S., establish that agencies cannot weaponize processing delays, and check what they see as executive overreach on immigration[5][9].
Impact on themWinning unblocks livelihoods and status for the named plaintiffs and, via the Rhode Island vacatur, potentially hundreds of thousands of applicants; it also strengthens future litigation against similar pauses[2][5].
Frames it asThe courts frame the question as one of statutory limits and administrative law: whether USCIS may indefinitely decline to adjudicate benefits Congress mandated, and whether a stated rationale is genuine or pretextual under the Administrative Procedure Act[3][4]. Judge Marbley distinguished this domestic benefits pause from policies governing entry at the border, where executive discretion is broadest[3].
WhyTo enforce the boundaries of agency authority and ensure agencies follow their own regulations and congressional mandates, regardless of the policy area[4].
Impact on themThe rulings become precedent for how far agencies can use 'security' delays; they also expose individual judges (McConnell, an Obama appointee; Marbley, a Clinton appointee) to political criticism as 'activist'[3].
Frames it asEmployers and families argue the freeze created real economic harm — workers with valid, renewable permits were forced off payrolls, and businesses lost trained staff — without any individualized finding that these specific people posed a threat[1]. They see decisions, not indefinite limbo, as the baseline the law promises.
WhyTo retain workers, maintain household income, and gain predictability about status[1].
Impact on themResumed processing restores work eligibility for many; continued appeals keep some in uncertainty about whether relief will hold[2].
The Bias Ledger average rating 4.5
The same story, as framed by outlets across the spectrum, ordered least to most biased. The bias score (1 = straight, 10 = heavily spun) is an AI assessment of that framing — click an outlet to see its track record. The tell is the word choice or omission that reveals the angle.
| Outlet | Vantage | Bias | How they frame it | The tell |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Courthouse News Service | U.S. center / legal trade press | 2 | "Judge blocks Trump's sweeping freeze on immigration benefits for 39 countries." | Neutral verbs ('blocks'), heavy reliance on the ruling text and named quotes from both the court and an advocate; publishes the underlying opinion PDF. Low spin, but the single advocate quote slightly favors the plaintiffs. |
| The Hill | U.S. center | 3 | "Judge blocks series of Trump policies halting immigration processing." | Procedural framing focused on which policies were vacated; notes appeal options. Minimal adjectives, but leads with the block rather than the security rationale. |
| Newsweek | U.S. center | 4 | "Judge Orders Trump Administration to Resume Green Card Processing" / framed as "another judicial setback" for the administration. | The 'setback' framing scores the ruling as a political loss for Trump; balanced on facts but the horse-race angle centers the administration's defeat over the legal test. |
| Cato Institute (Cato at Liberty) | U.S. libertarian (pro-immigration on this issue) | 4 | "Judge Finds DHS Violated the Law By Freezing Legal Immigration." | States the court's conclusion as the headline fact and stresses statutory-authority limits; sympathetic to the plaintiffs from a limited-government, pro-legal-immigration stance rather than a partisan-left one. |
| American Immigration Council | U.S. pro-immigration advocacy (litigant-aligned) | 6 | "Federal Court Blocks Sweeping Pause on Legal Immigration for Nationals of 39 Countries" — quoted an official calling it 'an enormous victory.' | Celebratory 'victory'/'stuck in limbo' language; the group is a party-aligned advocate, so it foregrounds applicant harm and omits the government's security case. |
| International Business Times UK | Non-U.S. (British) tabloid, left-leaning framing | 8 | "Federal Judge Blocks Trump Immigration Ban, Ruling He 'Clearly Prefers White People' and Citing Vance's 'Made-Up Stories'." | Leads with the most incendiary quotes about racism and mocks a named official; maximizes outrage and gives the security rationale essentially no space — heavily editorialized. |
References
- Trump immigration freeze hit by new federal court ruling / Judge Orders Trump Administration to Resume Green Card Processing — Newsweek · U.S. center, mainstream news
- Judge blocks Trump's sweeping freeze on immigration benefits for 39 countries — Courthouse News Service · U.S. center, legal trade press
- Opinion and Order, Doe 1 v. Edlow, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio — U.S. District Court (S.D. Ohio), via Courthouse News · Primary source — court record
- Judge Finds DHS Violated the Law By Freezing Legal Immigration — Cato Institute (Cato at Liberty blog) · U.S. libertarian think tank; pro-legal-immigration on this issue
- Federal Court Blocks Sweeping Pause on Legal Immigration for Nationals of 39 Countries — American Immigration Council · U.S. pro-immigration advocacy organization (aligned with plaintiffs)
- Judge blocks series of Trump policies halting immigration processing — The Hill · U.S. center
- Update on USCIS' Strengthened Screening and Vetting — U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) · Primary source — U.S. government agency statement
- 2025 Washington, D.C., National Guard shooting — Wikipedia · Crowd-sourced encyclopedia; used for background timeline
- Letter to DHS/USCIS re: Pause on Adjudication of Immigration Requests — Office of U.S. Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) · Primary source — Democratic U.S. senator
- Federal Judge Blocks Trump Immigration Ban, Ruling He 'Clearly Prefers White People' and Citing Vance's 'Made-Up Stories' — International Business Times UK · Non-U.S. (British) tabloid; left-leaning framing