On August 21, 2025, a federal courtroom in Washington, D.C. became the stage for a pivotal showdown over immigration policy. U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan, appointed by President Joe Biden in 2024, issued a ruling that sharply limited the State Department’s use of former President Donald Trump’s sweeping travel ban to deny visas to winners of the United States’ Diversity Visa lottery. The decision, while celebrated by immigration advocates, left federal officials fuming and underscored the ongoing legal and political battles over America’s borders and who gets to cross them.
The case centers on the Trump administration’s June 2024 travel ban, which barred or restricted entry to the U.S. for citizens of 19 countries. The ban fully restricted entry from Afghanistan, Myanmar (Burma), Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Partial restrictions were imposed on Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. According to The Daily Signal, the Trump administration argued these countries posed significant security risks, justifying the need for strict measures.
But the ban’s impact was felt most acutely by a small, hopeful group: the winners of the Diversity Visa lottery. Every year, this program offers 55,000 people from countries with historically low immigration rates a shot at permanent residency. For many, it’s a once-in-a-lifetime chance. As reported by The New York Times, 84 individuals from Afghanistan, Myanmar, Togo, Somalia, and Iran found themselves in legal limbo, their lottery wins overshadowed by the travel ban’s shadow. Their visas were either denied outright or left in bureaucratic limbo, with the clock ticking toward the September 30, 2025, deadline when their eligibility would expire.
Judge Sooknanan’s ruling delivered a lifeline—albeit a narrow one. She declared that the State Department could not use Trump’s travel ban as a basis to refuse processing Diversity Visa applications for those who had already won the lottery. In her written opinion, Sooknanan cited 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), the statute Trump used to justify the ban: “That provision authorizes the President, subject to specified limitations, to ‘suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.’ Plain as day, Subsection 1182(f) addresses only the question of entry, not the issuance of visas.”
However, the judge’s order was limited. As highlighted by The Washington Examiner and The New York Times, Sooknanan’s injunction covered only the 82 visa applications still pending; two had already been formally denied, and the court could not reverse those decisions. Her ruling did not extend to other immigration provisions or applicants whose requests were previously refused. Further, she emphasized that even those granted visas could still be denied entry at U.S. ports of entry or prevented from boarding flights—immigration authorities retained that power under the law.
The judge’s decision was shaped by recent Supreme Court precedent. In particular, she referenced the 2024 ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which sharply curtailed federal agencies’ ability to interpret ambiguous statutes on their own terms. Sooknanan rejected the Justice Department’s argument that the State Department’s “longstanding practice” of denying visas to individuals barred by presidential order should continue. Instead, she insisted that agencies must adhere to the text of the law, not their own traditions or interpretations.
For those affected, the stakes were deeply personal. Sooknanan wrote in her opinion, “Defendants miss the gravity of what the plaintiffs stand to lose. The plaintiffs literally won the lottery; they were randomly selected from millions of people around the world hoping for one of a handful of visas that could give them a chance to immigrate to the United States.” She added, “It may well be that, because of circumstances outside of their control, they will ultimately be unable to enter the United States even if they get a visa.”
Despite the ruling’s limitations, immigration advocates saw it as a meaningful check on executive power. As noted by The Daily Signal, the judge’s order required the State Department to make “good-faith efforts” to process the remaining Diversity Visa applications by the impending September 30 deadline. For dozens of families, this meant a renewed—if uncertain—hope.
The response from the State Department was swift and scathing. Principal deputy spokesman Tommy Pigott condemned the decision as “another example of wrongful judicial overreach aimed at curtailing this Administration’s strong and unwavering efforts to keep Americans and our communities safe.” He insisted, “We will continue to relentlessly work to ensure the president of the United States is able to use every tool he has available, including visas, to finally bring oversight to who we allow to visit our country.” According to The Daily Signal and The Washington Examiner, the administration signaled it would continue to use all available levers, including visa revocations and denials at ports of entry, to enforce its security priorities.
The ruling’s practical effects remain uncertain. While the State Department must process the pending applications, there is no guarantee that successful applicants will ultimately be allowed to enter the United States. As Sooknanan noted, immigration officers at ports of entry retain broad discretion to turn travelers away, and airline officials can be instructed to deny boarding. The doctrine of consular non-reviewability means courts have little power to revisit denied applications or admissions decisions once made.
Beyond the immediate case, the ruling has broader implications. According to State Department data cited by The New York Times, approximately 29,000 Diversity Visa lottery winners from countries affected by the travel ban could be impacted by the legal reasoning in Sooknanan’s decision. However, the injunction’s direct effect is limited to the individuals named in the lawsuit and does not overturn the travel ban itself.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration’s broader approach to visa revocations continues. The Washington Examiner reported that the State Department is reviewing more than 55 million visa holders for possible deportation violations, with a particular focus on student protesters accused of supporting terrorist organizations. Officials argue that those who sympathize with terrorism should not be allowed to remain in the U.S., a stance that has generated further legal and political controversy.
For now, the fate of the 82 Diversity Visa applicants hangs in the balance, caught between the promise of opportunity and the realities of American immigration law. Judge Sooknanan’s ruling delivers a measure of hope, but also a sobering reminder: even a lottery win can’t guarantee a new life in the United States. The legal and political battles over who gets to cross America’s borders are far from over, and the stakes for those waiting in line could not be higher.
