washington d.c. – A group of U.S. civil and immigrant rights groups filed a lawsuit seeking to challenge the sweeping pause U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration is responsible for processing immigrant visas for 75 countries.

The lawsuit filed Monday contends the Trump administration relied on false narratives to justify suspending visa processing, one of the most severe restrictions on legal immigration in the country’s history.

The lawsuit alleges that the policy “constitutes an illegal citizenship ban on legal immigrants and a new set of discriminatory, unlawful public charge rules that deprives families and working people of the process guaranteed by law,” according to an overview of the case from the National Immigration Law Center, one of the groups behind the legal challenge.

The 106-page complaint further alleges that the government “based on an unsubstantiated and patently false claim that nationals of the covered countries immigrated to the United States to improperly rely on cash benefits and risk becoming a ‘public charge.'”

The U.S. State Department described the action, announced in mid-January, as a “pause” on immigrant visa processing for “countries where immigrants receive benefits from the American people at unacceptable rates.”

The department has not disclosed the criteria used to determine which countries are added to the list, which is part of a broader effort shrink Legal immigration pathways into the United States and the deportation of undocumented citizens.

Affected countries include Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Mongolia, Brazil, Colombia, Cambodia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Senegal, Ghana, Somalia and Russia.

The list also includes Kuwait, Jordan, Lebanon, Tunisia, Iraq, Syria and Yemen, as well as a number of Caribbean, Pacific Island and Eastern European countries.

Non-immigrant visas, including business and tourist visas, remain exempt.

“The freeze will remain in effect until the United States can ensure that newcomers do not extract wealth from the American people,” the State Department said in January.

“Arbitrary, illegal and extremely harmful”

More than a dozen organizations and individuals named as plaintiffs in Monday’s lawsuit, along with seven legal organizations supporting them, argue the government’s policy abuses the so-called “public charge” ground for inadmissibility under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

They argued that the provision was a decision made on an “individualized” basis, meaning that if a person was granted immigration status they would be at risk of being “primarily and permanently dependent on the government for their livelihood”.

In turn, they said the government violated another provision of the Immigration Act, which states that “no person shall be accorded any preference or preference or shall be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa on account of race, sex, nationality, place of birth or residence”.

It further argued that the government had adopted an overly broad interpretation of what constituted a “public charge.”

The plaintiffs include U.S. citizens who applied for and had their family members, including children and spouses, approved to come to the U.S. to reunite, a process known as “family reunification.” Other plaintiffs include foreigners who obtained immigrant visas through their specialized employment.

Hasan Shafiqullah, an immigration supervising attorney at the Legal Aid Society, called the State Department’s policy “arbitrary, illegal and extremely harmful to families who are following the rules and simply seeking to reunite with their loved ones.”

Other lawyers supporting the case stressed that the policy disproportionately affects people from Africa, the Middle East, South and Central Asia, and Eastern Europe.

Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, accused the administration of relying on “obvious excuses about non-white families improperly receiving benefits.”

“Congress and the Constitution prohibit white supremacy as a basis for immigration policy.”

The lawsuit further calls out “arbitrary and derogatory” statements by Trump and administration officials about immigrants’ possible access to public benefits.

It noted that most immigrants are not eligible for most government assistance programs but are required to pay local, state and federal taxes.

The U.S. State Department did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment on the new legislation. U.S. agencies typically do not comment on pending litigation.

chance of success

The chances of success in the new lawsuit remain unclear amid a host of legal challenges.

The plaintiffs won at least a temporary pause on several key immigration issues, notably with Trump’s use of alien enemy law In 1798, he quickly deported alleged gang members and worked to end birthright citizenship, with lawsuits working their way through the legal system.

Many longer-term decisions remain elusive.

Meanwhile, in 2018, the conservative-led U.S. Supreme Court upheld Trump’s visa processing ban on several Muslim-majority countries, including Iran, Syria, Yemen, Libya and Somalia, in a 5-4 decision.

In a 2018 ruling, a majority of the justices ruled that the president has broad discretion to restrict individuals from entering the United States.

At the time, the Trump administration cited “national security” concerns rather than the “public charge” argument used in the recent suspension.