By Julia Arciga and Alyssa Aquino

Law360 (September 14, 2020, 11:58 PM EDT) -- A D.C. federal judge on Monday ordered the Trump administration to stop requiring Diversity Visa lottery winners who fall under regional travel restrictions to undergo a 14-day out-of-country quarantine before they obtain their green cards.

The order came down hours after U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta said he would "need to think" about tossing the quarantine requirement for diversity lottery winners from regions under pandemic travel restrictions — Europe's Schengen Zone, Iran, Brazil, China, the United Kingdom and Ireland. Under immigration law, 2020 lottery winners must claim their visas by Sept. 30, or try again in future lotteries.

The U.S. Department of State introduced the measure in light of Judge Mehta's Sept. 4 order that the government "expeditiously process and adjudicate" the 45,000 remaining diversity lottery visas. During a hearing Monday, the agency defended the condition, saying it was fully compliant with Judge Mehta's injunction.

"No, it is not," Judge Mehta wrote in an order issued late Monday. "The quarantine requirement is premised on a faulty legal position, and it is irrational, too."

"[T]he agency has engrafted the Regional Proclamations' 14-day-presence entry disqualifier on to the statutory requirements for visa issuance. The Department cites no legal authority that would permit it to take such action," he said. "The Department cannot look to the Regional Proclamations themselves for such power, because those presidential orders only pace restrictions on entry."

Judge Mehta came to this conclusion after counsel for would-be immigrants — who originally sued the Trump administration over its suspension of the green card lottery — raised the issue and claimed the extra two-week wait was a "bad faith" interpretation of the judge's order.

Charles H. Kuck of Kuck Immigration Partners LLC, counsel for the visa seekers, said the government was creating an "impossibility clause" for diversity lottery winners by making them quarantine for two weeks in another country.

"It's honestly unconscionable that they're doing this," he said, adding later that he thought the "court can amend its order to fix this issue."

The government, on the other hand, said it imposed the two-week period to prevent U.S. consulate officers in those "hot spot" regions from having to conduct "face-to-face" interviews with visa seekers and protect them from COVID-19.

"We want to make clear that the government is not trying to act in bad faith. We're doing the best we can in very challenging circumstances," James Wen of the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Division said.

But the argument didn't sway Judge Mehta, who said there were no apparent health benefits to the quarantine.

"DV-2020 applicants are simply being channeled to appear before a different consular officer outside of the covered regions (after traveling to do so)," he wrote.

Judge Mehta further called the reasoning suspect, saying no other foreigners seeking visas in the covered regions faced similar quarantine requirements.

"[It] seemed designed to frustrate DV-2020 applicants who might benefit from the court's order. In both form and spirit, the policy is at odds with this court's injunction," the judge said.

Rafael Ureña, additional counsel for the lottery winners, praised the development in a statement to Law360.

"This is a moment to celebrate and clears a major hurdle for many DV-2020 winners. However, the work is not done. Unused visas must be preserved to ensure the will of Congress is realized despite the unlawful actions of the administration," he said.

Representatives for the State Department didn't immediately respond to requests for comment after hours Monday.

During the hearing, Judge Mehta also indicated that he could order the agency to issue the diversity visas past the Sept. 30 deadline.

Lottery winners have attempted to sell Judge Mehta on extending the lottery visa deadline, saying during an August hearing that even if the State Department was forced to restart processing, it may not have enough time to process the tens of thousands of pending applications. But Judge Mehta deferred to the deadline, which he noted was set by Congress.

"How do I have the authority to compel officers to process visas past the statutory deadline?" he asked at the time. "What authority gives me the right to direct an agency to do something that is unlawful?"

However, he suggested on Monday that his Sept. 4 injunction may be a type of "anchor" he could use to prolong the deadline.

"I read my power to potentially do that, but not necessarily," he said. "If there's an order in place before Sept. 30, it provides an anchor, if you will, to provide some relief after Sept. 30."

Judge Mehta's order resulted from five consolidated lawsuits targeting Trump's April and June proclamations barring certain foreign citizens seeking green cards and work visas from abroad from entering the U.S. The plaintiffs — a group of over 1,000 American citizens with overseas relatives, U.S.-based employers, diversity lottery winners and foreign nationals with approved petitions for temporary worker visas — argued that Trump had overstepped his authority when he blocked them from entering the U.S.

The diversity visa winners and their beneficiaries are represented by Rafael Ureña, Curtis Lee Morrison and Abadir Barre of the Law Office of Rafael Ureña in the Mohammed and Fonjong suits; Charles H. Kuck of Kuck Baxter Immigration Partners LLC in the Aker suit; Jesse M. Bless of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, Karen C. Tumlin and Esther H. Sung of the Justice Action Center, Laboni A. Hoq of the Law Office of Laboni A. Hoq, Stephen Manning, Nadia Dahab and Tess Hellgren of the Innovation Law Lab, and Andrew J. Pincus, Matthew D. Ingber and Cleland B. Welton II of Mayer Brown LLP in the Gomez suit; and Geoffrey Forney of Wasden Banias LLC in the Panda suit.

The government is represented by Christopher Thomas Lyerla, James Wen and Thomas Benton York of the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Division, and Robert A. Caplen and William Chang of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia.

The case is Gomez et al. v. Trump et al., case number 1:20-cv-01419, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

--Additional reporting by Suzanne Monyak and Nadia Dreid. Editing by Breda Lund.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.