Judge Beryl A. Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued the preliminary injunction on Friday.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a stay of the policy, granting relief to the Coalition for Independent Technology Research (CITR), the plaintiff organization in the case.
The policy, announced by Secretary of State Marco Rubio in 2025, initially targeted foreign nationals said to be complicit in censoring Americans. It later expanded, according to the court's opinion, into a broader campaign against noncitizens who work on misinformation, disinformation, fact checking, content moderation, compliance, and trust and safety. The State Department has invoked the policy to bar individuals from the country or seek their removal, including lEADers of CITR member organizations.
The court found that CITR showed a likelihood that the policy is reviewable and that it burdens protected speech and association on the basis of viewpoint, in violation of the First Amendment and the APA. The opinion noted that the policy targets "foreign nationals said to be complicit in censoring Americans" and that the department has used it to impose immigration consequences on individuals whose work involves studying or countering harmful online content.
"The Court concludes that Plaintiff has shown a likelihood that the policy is reviewable and that it burdens protected speech and association on the basis of viewpoint, in violation of the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act," the opinion stated.
The ruling rests on two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(C)(i), a noncitizen is inadmissible if the secretary has "reasonable ground to believe" that the individual's entry would have "potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences." A separate provision, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4)(C)(i), allows removal on a similar showing. Both provisions contain protections: a noncitizen "shall not be excludable or subject to restrictions or conditions on entry" based on lawful beliefs, statements, or associations, unless the secretary personally determines that admission would compromise a compelling foreign policy interest.
The court's opinion described the policy as targeting a specific viewpoint in a heated public debate over online content moderation. "To one side of a heated public debate, that work makes digital discourse safer and more accountable. To the other, it is censorship by another name," the opinion said. "The State Department has now placed immigration consequences behind that latter view."
The court granted a stay of the policy under 5 U.S.C. § 705, blocking its enforcement pending further proceedings. The government's position is not given in the source account.