Federal Judge Orders Restoration of the 2027 Diversity Visa Lottery
What happened:
On October 14, 2026, U.S. District Judge Jinsook Ohta issued a preliminary injunction requiring the State Department to move forward with the 2027 Diversity Visa Lottery.
The ruling follows a lawsuit challenging the administration’s failure to open registration, which threatened a program that makes up to 55,000 immigrant visas available annually.
That figure refers to available visas, not a limit on how many people can enter the lottery.
What the order requires:
The State Department must announce a 30-day registration period, publish eligibility requirements and entry instructions, accept eligible electronic entries, and process selected applicants under its usual procedures.
The judge initially ordered an announcement by midnight on October 15. However, the plaintiffs’ attorney reported requesting a two-week extension; the article does not confirm whether that request was approved.
Why it matters:
The ruling protects an immigration pathway that the administration had effectively stalled. However, it is a preliminary injunction—not a final resolution of the lawsuit—and selection in the lottery does not itself guarantee permanent residency.
Community takeaway
Potential applicants should watch for official State Department instructions rather than assume registration is already open. Community organizations should verify the final registration dates before circulating application announcements.
Source:
Trump admin ordered to reinstate 2027 Green Card Lottery | Courthouse News Service
Supreme Court’s 2026–27 Term Could Reshape Immigration Protections
What is happening
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear six immigration-related cases during its 2026–27 term.
These cases address deportation procedures, access to bond hearings, asylum eligibility, agricultural worker protections, and access to attorney’s fees in detention challenges.
They are pending cases, not new final rulings.
Key issues to watch:
Third-country deportations: Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. concerns deportations to countries not identified in a person’s removal order, including questions about notice and opportunities to raise fears of torture. The Supreme Court has temporarily paused the lower court’s judgment blocking the policy while it reviews the dispute.
Detention without bond: Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha asks whether the administration can use a mandatory-detention law to deny bond hearings to people arrested inside the United States, including those who entered years earlier.
Asylum and permanent residency: Blanche v. Ozurumba addresses what constitutes “material support” for a terrorist organization. Wassily v. Blanche asks whether someone whose asylum status has been terminated can still qualify to adjust to lawful permanent residency.
Worker protections and legal costs: Two additional cases concern the Labor Department’s authority to enforce H-2A agricultural visa requirements and whether people who successfully challenge immigration detention can qualify for attorney’s fees.
Why it matters
These decisions could significantly affect people’s ability to challenge detention, seek protection from removal, and pursue permanent residency. Additional petitions involving asylum access and judicial review remain under consideration; the Court has not yet agreed to hear them.
Community takeaway
Organizations should distinguish pending litigation from changes already in effect. People facing detention, removal, or loss of asylum status should seek individualized legal guidance rather than assume these pending cases automatically change their rights.
Source: The immigration term | SCOTUSblog
