Why were 38 people removed from a naturalization ceremony in Indianapolis today.
Executive summary
A federal directive from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) led to the cancellation of oaths for 38 scheduled applicants at a Dec. 9 naturalization ceremony in Indianapolis, a move local officials called discriminatory; the agency told some candidates at the door they could not take the oath and 62 others were sworn in as planned [1] [2]. Reporting links the cancellations to policy memoranda barring certain pending naturalization cases tied to countries newly designated in a travel-ban expansion under the Trump administration, a rationale cited by multiple local outlets and immigration attorneys [3] [4] [5].
1. The immediate cause: canceled oaths at the door
Federal officials present at the Union Station ceremony informed a subset of attendees that their oaths of allegiance had been “canceled,” preventing 38 out of 100 scheduled participants from completing naturalization while allowing 62 to become citizens that day, according to a USCIS official identified in reporting [1]. Local coverage described the scene as people being stopped as they entered and told they would not leave as new U.S. citizens, an account repeated across Indianapolis outlets [2] [6].
2. The policy behind the cancellations: travel‑ban expansion and USCIS memoranda
Multiple reports tie the cancellations to two USCIS policy memoranda that bar adjudication or finalization of certain pending naturalization cases for applicants from countries that had been newly listed under a travel‑ban expansion implemented by the Trump administration; Indiana Lawyer and other outlets reported that those memoranda were the operating cause of the pause for some applicants [3] [4]. Local immigration attorneys and national coverage framed the change as part of a broader shift where applicants from “high‑risk” or newly suspended countries face additional review or suspension of oath ceremonies [5].
3. Local official reaction: ‘racist policy’ and demands for reversal
Marion County Clerk Kate Sweeney Bell publicly condemned the dismissal of the 38 prospective citizens as discriminatory and demanded that federal officials reverse the policy and reschedule ceremonies so qualified applicants can complete citizenship, a position documented in local television and newspaper reporting [2] [7]. The clerk’s office also participates in ceremonies to assist new citizens with voter registration, underscoring local frustration that the federal action interrupted those final steps [2].
4. Broader context and examples cited by reporters
Coverage of subsequent ceremonies noted that similar denials continued, with at least two denied at a Dec. 18 session and reports that one person excluded was from Niger—one of the countries newly included in the travel‑ban expansion—providing a concrete example of how the policy affected attendees [8] [5]. WTHR and WISH framed the Indianapolis incidents within a national pattern of immigrants being told at last minute that their countries of origin now imperil their final citizenship steps [6] [7].
5. Conflicting perspectives and reporting limits
While local officials and advocates called the action discriminatory, reporting shows the cancellations were carried out under federal direction tied to USCIS memoranda; the exact legal reasoning, list of affected nationalities, and USCIS’s public explanation are not fully documented in the provided local sources, which means a complete federal account is not present in the materials cited here [3] [1]. The Indiana Lawyer and other outlets described the memoranda; some television reports called the linkage likely but noted uncertainty about whether every exclusion stemmed directly from the travel‑ban list [5] [3].
6. What this means going forward
The incident exposed a clash between local election officials and federal immigration policy, with calls to reschedule ceremonies and legal observers warning of a pattern of last‑minute cancellations nationwide; upcoming ceremonies in Indianapolis continued to be watched closely as additional applicants were reported turned away, suggesting the policy effect was ongoing at the time of reporting [3] [9]. Given the gaps in the publicly available federal justification in these sources, further reporting from USCIS or formal litigation would be needed to fully settle legality and the scope of impacted applicants [1].