⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit hears argument in Rohani v. Rubio, a case testing the boundaries of consular non-reviewability. The core legal issue is whether federal courts have jurisdiction to review an alleged State Department policy that categorically denies visas to anyone who served in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, even for mandatory service before the IRGC was designated a foreign terrorist organization in 2019. The plaintiffs argue that the statute governing terrorism-related inadmissibility includes a knowledge requirement for non-designated organizations, and that visa applicants were never given an opportunity to present evidence about their mental state or the nature of their service. The government counters that the doctrine of consular non-reviewability bars any such review, whether individual or programmatic. The case also involves Canadian nationals denied entry by Customs and Border Protection officers at the border. What makes this dispute particularly notable is that it arises in the shadow of a recent Supreme Court decision narrowing judicial review in immigration matters, yet the plaintiffs insist there remains a narrow path for policy-level challenges that do not require re-examining individual visa decisions.

Rohani v. Rubio (No. 25-4628) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued August 5, 2026.