Labor Unions and Faculty Groups Sue Trump Administration Over Immigration Policies

Introduction

Labor unions, university faculty groups, and immigrant advocates are challenging the Trump administration’s immigration policies. These policies allegedly make it more difficult for certain immigrants already in the U.S. to obtain green cards without leaving the country.

The Lawsuit

The lawsuit was filed on October 5 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. It targets policies issued by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in May and August. These policies influence the adjustment of status process. This process allows eligible immigrants already in the United States to apply for permanent residence domestically, rather than requiring them to obtain an immigrant visa from a U.S. consulate abroad.

The plaintiffs argue these policies change the rules for those seeking permanent residence. They claim that individuals who filed before these policies were enacted might now be judged under new standards, risking denial without a chance to provide additional evidence.

Policy Details

The May policy instructs USCIS officers to consider if an applicant applied for a green card domestically rather than through consular processing. The August policy enables USCIS officers to deny applications without requesting additional evidence or notifying applicants of a possible denial. This change affects both new applications and those pending when the policy was implemented.

These adjustments are seen as part of the Trump administration’s efforts to tighten legal immigration processes. Changes include repealing Biden-era public-charge regulations and issuing new USCIS guidelines about the likelihood of green card applicants becoming reliant on government benefits.

Organizations Involved

The lawsuit was brought by various organizations, including the American Association of University Professors, Service Employees International Union, Americans for Immigrant Justice, and six individual green card applicants. These groups represent academics, researchers, service workers, and numerous other immigrants seeking permanent residence.

Challenged Changes

Adjustment of status allows certain eligible immigrants already in the U.S. to apply for permanent residence without leaving. Meanwhile, consular processing requires applicants to complete the visa process abroad. USCIS’s May policy outlines adjustment as an ‘extraordinary’ form of discretionary relief. The plaintiffs argue that the decision to use this authorized process shouldn’t count against immigrants.

The August policy affects applicants with pending cases. Plaintiffs argue individuals who applied before the policy change had no reason to submit evidence for the government’s new approach, potentially leading to denial without a chance to present additional evidence.

Implications and Statistics

Adjustment of status makes up a substantial portion of legal immigration. In fiscal year 2024, 57 percent of lawful permanent residents achieved this status through adjustment, as per DHS figures.

Lawsuit’s Objectives

The lawsuit claims USCIS lacks the authority to penalize immigrants for choosing adjustment of status over consular processing. Congress established adjustment in 1952, amending it several times, and did not impose a general rule requiring applications abroad.

The lawsuit alleges six claims against the policies, asserting they exceed USCIS’s authority, misapply new standards, and violate legal precedents. The complaint highlights potential negative outcomes, including family separations and disruptions in employment and education.

Specific cases include that of Maria Francisca Guardado, whose application for status adjustment was refused despite eligibility. USCIS considered her immigration history and dismissed a 1999 arrest. Guardado has requested USCIS reconsider the decision.

Another plaintiff, Miriam Esther Moreno Coto, faced USCIS questioning for pursuing adjustment in the U.S. Her family challenges, including a son requiring continuing care, make applying abroad impractical.

Statements from Advocates

Democracy Forward’s CEO, Skye Perryman, emphasized that Congress provided a route for immigrants to apply for permanent residence without leaving the U.S. She argues the administration’s policies ignore this structure.

Todd Wolfson, president of the American Association of University Professors, criticized the weaponization of the green card process, which poses threats to academia and scientific innovation.

Future Steps

Plaintiffs want the court to block and ultimately strike down these policies. They seek a mandate for USCIS to adjudicate applications under established Board of Immigration Appeals precedent. The court has yet to rule on these claims.