Anyone waiting for a green card who followed the August news heard, within a few weeks, things that seem to contradict each other. That the rule blocking Brazilians had fallen. That consulates were still applying it. That the Government was already complying with the decision. And that another judge, a week later, struck the same rule down again.
None of it is contradictory. Each of those statements is true at a particular moment and for a particular group of people. The difference between them is exactly what matters to someone whose case is frozen, and that is what this text explains.
What the rule did
In February 2026, the State Department told consulates to refuse every green card application filed by someone born in one of 75 countries, Brazil among them. The refusal would stand until the Government created new rules on an old subject: the risk of an immigrant coming to depend on public assistance in the United States.
The central point, and the reason for every one of the Government's defeats in court, is this: the refusal did not come from examining each person's case. It came from the country where that person was born, and it came before that examination or in spite of it. U.S. law already requires the consular officer to look at each applicant's situation, one by one, and that is what the rule dispensed with.
Four rulings, and why they do not all apply to you
Between July 31 and August 28, 2026, four federal judges examined the rule and sided with the applicants. What separates one ruling from another is not what the judges thought of the rule: it is who each one protects.
| Case | When and where | Who the ruling protects |
|---|---|---|
| De Moura Gomes | July 31, Washington | only those who joined that case |
| CLINIC | August 21, New York | everyone affected by the rule |
| Ivanov | August 25, Washington | only those who joined that case |
| Medani | August 28, California | people drawn in the 2026 green card lottery |
The natural question is why judges who found the same rule unlawful protected such different groups. The answer lies not in each judge's conviction, but in how each case was built.
When someone sues the Government in their own name, the win belongs to that person and stops there. That is what happened in two of the four cases. When the case is a class action and the judge formally recognizes the group, the ruling applies to everyone in that group, whether or not they have hired a lawyer. And there is a third route, asking the judge to strike down the rule itself: then it ceases to exist for everyone. That is what the New York ruling did on August 21, in CLINIC v. Rubio, and it is why that one matters most to Brazilian readers.
The most recent ruling, the California one, in Medani v. Trump, is of the class action kind, and the group it recognized is made up of the people drawn in the 2026 green card lottery and their families. Brazil does not take part in that lottery, because it already sends many immigrants to the United States every year, and the program exists for people from places where immigration is low. People born in Brazil are therefore not in that group, as a rule.
Striking down a rule is not the same as making it disappear
The New York ruling, in CLINIC v. Rubio, applies to everyone, and even so the people who obtained it had to go back to the judge five days later. They said nothing had changed in practice: the official page announcing the rule was still published, and applicants were being told the rule was still in force.
On August 28 the Government responded, and the response changed the picture. It acknowledged that the ruling is fully in force, stated that it is complying, and reported that the January guidance is no longer applied, that instructions are being sent to embassies and consulates, including to review those refused solely because of the rule, and that consulates have resumed scheduling interviews. Both sides recorded, that day, that the official page had gone offline. On 30 August the page is online, showing an update date of 28 August. It now opens with a notice that the January pause is no longer in effect, in compliance with the court's order. Below that notice the January text is still there, with the list of 75 countries.
Even so, the matter is not closed. The New York judge set a hearing for August 31, 2026 to decide whether the Government is in fact complying. And there is a clear sign that caution is warranted: even with the rule already struck down in CLINIC v. Rubio, the judge in Medani chose to address it again, and explained why. The ruling was very recent, and the Government can still appeal.
What to do if your case has stalled
- Ask the consulate handling your case, not a general web page, which may lag behind what has already been decided.
- If you were refused, keep the refusal notice, with its date and the written reason. The difference between having been refused solely because of this rule and having been refused for another reason is what determines who is included in the review the Government says it is organizing.
- If your interview was cancelled or postponed, follow up on rescheduling: the Government stated in court that consulates have resumed scheduling green card interviews.
- Keep current anything that expires, above all the medical exam and the passport, so that the restart of your case does not run into an out-of-date document.
- Before relying on a ruling you read about in the press, check whether it protects you. Two of the four apply only to those who joined those cases.
What is still unknown
Three things remain open, and any one of them could change the picture. Whether the judge in CLINIC v. Rubio will find the Government in default at the August 31 hearing. Whether the striking down will be appealed. And how quickly consulates will in fact restart cases, which no public document shows and which appears only case by case.
Sources
- Medani v. Trump, No. 5:26-cv-06332-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Order Granting in Part Motion for Class Certification; Granting in Part Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF 83, filed August 28, 2026, 23 pages.
- Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. v. Rubio, 2026 WL 2455099 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2026), Opinion and Order; Rule 54(b) Judgment of August 24, 2026 (ECF 84).
- Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. v. Rubio, No. 1:26-cv-00858-JAV (S.D.N.Y.), Defendants' Submission Regarding Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion to Enforce and for Status Conference, ECF 90, filed August 28, 2026, with the accompanying declaration at ECF 90-1.
- Ivanov v. Trump, 2026 WL 2494805 (D.D.C. Aug. 25, 2026).
- De Moura Gomes v. Rubio, 2026 WL 2212503 (D.D.C. July 31, 2026).
- Department of State, Immigrant Visa Processing Updates for Nationalities at High Risk of U.S. Public Benefits Reliance, page updated August 28, 2026, read on August 30, 2026.
Updated August 30, 2026. This text deals with cases still under way, which may change at any time, and with a hearing set for August 31, 2026 that may alter the picture. Confirm the situation before making any decision.