22 States Sue Trump Administration to Halt Expanded Public Charge Rule
A coalition of 22 states and the District of Columbia filed a federal lawsuit on Monday to block the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from implementing an expanded “public charge” rule that could sharply restrict legal immigration.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, challenges a policy scheduled to take effect this Friday. The rule broadens the discretion of immigration officials to deny green cards, visas, and lawful entry to applicants who utilize or are deemed likely to rely on government safety-net programs.
Broader Scope Than Past Restrictions
Under the revised policy, officials may weigh an applicant’s use of non-cash public benefits, such as Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and housing vouchers. Unlike the version implemented during the first Trump administration in 2020, the new directive does not restrict scrutiny to a specific list of programs, instead granting DHS the authority to evaluate any means-tested public assistance.
Advocates warn the policy reaches even deeper into mixed-status households. Maddie Geschu, policy director at the Protecting Immigrant Families coalition, noted that the regulation permits officers to count benefits received by U.S.-citizen children against their noncitizen parents during the green card application process.
DHS has maintained that the rule is designed to ensure immigrants are self-sufficient and do not burden taxpayers. The agency noted that enrollment in public programs does not lead to an automatic denial, explaining that officers must evaluate the totality of an applicant’s circumstances, including age, health, household finances, education, and job skills.
Legal Pushback from States and Cities
In the complaint, James argued that Congress never authorized such an expansive definition of public charge, asserting that DHS exceeded its statutory authority and violated the Administrative Procedure Act by issuing an “arbitrary and capricious” rule without sufficient justification.
“Hardworking families should not be forced to forgo the assistance they need simply because they fear that seeking help will lead to deportation,” James said in a statement, accusing the administration of weaponizing fear to strip families of critical healthcare and nutrition aid.
State officials also warned that widespread disenrollment by immigrant families could trigger severe public health fallout, shifting financial burdens to local governments and potentially jeopardizing billions of dollars in federal matching funds.
A separate federal lawsuit was also filed Monday by a municipal coalition that includes New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, California’s Santa Clara County, and Washington state’s King County.
“The new public charge rule seeks to scare immigrant families away from programs that have kept people fed and healthy for decades,” New York official Zohran Mamdani said in a statement. “New Yorkers will avoid doctors and forgo the assistance they are legally entitled to receive out of fear, creating a chilling effect that will harm entire communities.”
Decades of Shifting Policy
The concept of a “public charge” has been part of U.S. immigration law since the Immigration Act of 1882, traditionally applied narrowly to individuals primarily dependent on government cash assistance. The policy underwent a major expansion under the Trump administration in 2020 before the Biden administration largely restored the historical standard in 2022.
With the latest iteration slated to take effect at the end of the week, plaintiffs are asking the federal court to issue an immediate injunction to prevent the rules from being enforced nationwide.