Over 20 States File Lawsuit Against DHS Rule on Immigration Public Charge

<p>More than 20 states are suing the Trump administration over a new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rule that would give immigration officials wider discretion in determining what constitutes a public charge, a statute that allows the government to deny visas or green cards to applicants deemed likely to become dependent on government assistance.</p><p>The rule, set to take effect on September 18, 2026, would expand the list of possible government aid that officials could consider when deciding to disqualify an applicant.</p><p>New York State Attorney General Letitia James led a coalition of 21 states and Washington, D.C., in suing the administration over what they describe as punitive measures against immigrants' lawful use of public assistance. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani also led a separate lawsuit filed by a coalition of cities challenging the DHS rule.</p><p>James stated that the rule would allow immigration officials to consider an immigrant's use of benefits such as Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and participation in school meal programs when determining the likelihood of dependence on government aid. She expressed concerns that this could lead to increased fear among immigrant families regarding interactions with the government.</p><p>"Hardworking families should not be forced to go without the support they need because they fear asking for assistance will get them deported," James said in a statement. "This rule preys on that fear and counts on families forfeiting the food assistance, health care coverage, and other public benefits to which they are legally entitled. My office fought this exact policy once before and won, and we are leading the nation to ensure the Trump administration cannot inflict this harm on families again."</p><p>The public charge ground applies to certain immigrants seeking admission or adjustment of status. Most undocumented immigrants are ineligible for federal means-tested public benefits, although limited exceptions exist under federal and state law.</p><p>The states argue they would lose billions of dollars in federal funding if immigrants withdraw from programs due to fears about the public charge rule.</p><p>Under the Biden administration's 2022 public charge rule, immigration officials generally considered only cash assistance for income maintenance, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI), along with government-funded long-term institutionalization, when determining a public charge.</p><p>The new rule does not specify a fixed list of public benefits that immigration officials may consider. Instead, it states that officers may consider the receipt of any means-tested public benefits as part of a public charge determination, giving them broader discretion in evaluating applicants.</p><p>The lawsuits filed by the states and cities seek to declare the rule unlawful and prevent DHS from implementing it.</p><p>David Bier, Director of Immigration Studies at the Cato Institute, noted, "It's very hard to predict how courts will look at this issue. It is very unusual regulation though. I think from that standpoint the states have a good argument that we had a well-defined public charge rule and the administration didn't replace it with some other well-defined rule; it replaced it with nothing. So now there's just discretion to the officers to do whatever they want with the underlying statute. There's no regulation that clearly says this is what it means to be a public charge in the United States."</p><p>Bier explained that the previous rule required individuals to be primarily dependent on certain government benefit programs, while the new rule removes that definition without replacing it. This lack of clarity could lead to confusion for applicants and their legal representatives.</p><p>The states' lawsuit argues that DHS is exceeding its authority, as Congress did not approve a broader interpretation of what it means to be a public charge. The states claim the new rule is arbitrary and that the agency ignored the harmful consequences of the change.</p><p>James stated at a press conference, "Cruelty is the point. Having a chilling effect on immigrants is the point. Letting individuals know that they are not welcome here is the point. Immigration animus is the point. The fact that you’re going to deny individuals who are sick and hungry and homeless benefits just is beyond the pale."</p><p>Bier added that the rule does not prohibit immigrants from receiving welfare and is only used as an officer's projection about someone's likelihood of future welfare use in the U.S., warning that it could lead to self-sufficient applicants being denied.</p><p>"Whether someone is currently using benefits or not doesn't matter under this evaluation. It's this probabilistic determination of the future that they're using in order to deny people legal status and legal permanent resident status in the United States. That's a much more difficult assessment to make. That's going to result in arbitrary denials. It's just not possible to do this type of assessment and not result in people who would be self-sufficient being denied status," he said.</p><p>This legal action occurs as President Donald Trump pursues a broader immigration crackdown that has extended beyond illegal immigration to legal immigration pathways. While Trump campaigned in 2024 on curbing illegal immigration, his administration has also imposed additional restrictions on legal immigration, including higher fees for certain work visas and new limits on how long some foreign students and journalists can remain in the U.S.</p><p>The administration has also pursued visa revocations and removal proceedings in cases involving political activity and speech, including some anti-Israel activists. These efforts have prompted court challenges alleging violations of First Amendment free speech and Fifth Amendment due process protections.</p><p>Bier stated, "It's very clear that this administration wants to restrict both illegal immigration, which obviously it's done at the border, and through deportations, but also legal immigration."</p><p>Last month, the administration directed U.S. embassies and consulates worldwide to postpone immigrant visa interviews while consular officers complete training on new public charge guidance, temporarily stalling applications that had reached the interview stage.</p><p>Bier noted that the primary population affected by this public charge rule are spouses of U.S. citizens and their children who are trying to receive green cards to live with their American spouse or parent in the United States. "That's the overwhelming majority of the people who are going to be affected by the rule. It's going to result in many of those immigrant families being separated from their American spouse or parent," he said.</p><p>The public charge provision stems from the Immigration Act of 1882, when federal lawmakers sought to ensure that immigrants would be able to take care of themselves and not become a public burden.</p><p>After years of only considering cash benefits, the first Trump administration widened the categories of benefit programs that could be considered a public charge, including Medicaid, food stamps, and housing vouchers. However, the Biden administration in 2022 published a rule that returned to the previous guidance. The rule set to take effect this week would rescind the Biden administration's rule.</p><p>The new rule is broader than the one from the first Trump administration, as it does not specify which safety nets should be considered and only states that DHS "will consider the receipt of any means-tested public benefits."</p><p>Bier concluded, "One of the most important things to understand is that during the first Trump administration, they had a public charge rule that was well defined that really did explain exactly what you were supposed to do in order to not be deemed a public charge or who was a public charge. This is completely different from that. It's essentially the Wild West. No one knows what's going on, no one knows what the law is now."</p>