A federal judge ruled on July 31, 2026, that the State Department’s public charge visa policy violates the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). In De Moura Gomes v. Rubio, Judge Amit Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that the policy stripped consular officers of their statutory authority to evaluate visa applicants individually. Rather than letting officers weigh each case on its own facts, the policy directed them to refuse covered applications outright while DOS worked out new screening procedures.
Background
DOS rolled out the public charge rule in March 2026. Under it, consular officers could weigh a broad set of factors to decide whether an applicant showed enough self-sufficiency, including:
- Health and need for long-term medical care.
- Age.
- English language proficiency.
- Financial history.
- Any previous use of government cash assistance.
- Institutionalization.
Receiving benefits from certain programs could also trigger a public charge finding, including:
- The Social Security Administration’s Supplemental Security Income program.
- The federally funded Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.
- State or local programs aimed at helping low-income families.
Because consular officers were reviewing every angle of a case, applicants were advised to hold onto copies of key documents throughout the process, including:
- The visa petition.
- The visa application.
- The medical report.
- The Affidavit of Support.
- Anything else that came up during vetting.
What the Ruling Means
This order only binds the plaintiff in this suit: DOS can’t use the public charge policy against De Moura Gomes, and it must adjudicate his application when a consular officer determines it’s complete. But since Judge Mehta invalidated the policy itself as contrary to the INA, applicants affected by the policy have a strong argument that denial notices issued under that policy were unlawful. The injunction doesn’t invalidate the public charge ground of inadmissibility itself, which has been a feature of immigration law for decades. It does prevent DOS from transforming that standard which requires an individualized assessment into a blanket bar for applicants from the affected countries. If and how DOS appeals or changes its guidance moving forward will determine just how much of a difference this makes for pending applicants.
As always, ILBSG actively monitors ongoing U.S. immigration news. If you have questions about any U.S. immigration related issue, contact us. Working with an experienced attorney ensures you get the right advice based on the most recent laws. In an ever-evolving immigration policy landscape, it’s particularly critical you get the right advice.