21 States Sue to Stop Trump Rule that Prevents Some Immigrants to Get Green Cards/ TezzBuzz/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ New York and 21 other states are suing to block a Trump administration rule expanding the public benefits immigration officers may consider in green card and visa decisions. The states argue that the policy exceeds federal authority and will discourage eligible immigrant families from using health care, food and housing assistance. The lawsuit asks a federal court to invalidate the rule before it takes effect Friday.
Quick Look
- New York is leading a lawsuit involving 21 additional states and the District of Columbia.
- A separate coalition of cities and counties is preparing a similar legal challenge.
- The rule gives immigration officers greater discretion in applying the “public charge” standard.
- Officials may consider means-tested benefits, potentially including Medicaid, food assistance and housing aid.
- Receiving a benefit would be one factor in a broader evaluation, not an automatic reason for denial.
- The states allege that the rule is unlawful, insufficiently justified and “arbitrary and capricious.”
- Plaintiffs warn that fear could cause mixed-status families to leave programs for which they remain legally eligible.
- The states estimate they could lose about $2.2 billion in federal Medicaid and CHIP payments.
- The lawsuit seeks to block and invalidate the policy, not obtain monetary damages.
Deep Look
States Challenge Expanded Immigration Rule
New York and 21 other states are suing the Trump administration over a new Department of Homeland Security rule that would broaden the information immigration officers may consider when deciding whether an applicant is likely to become dependent on government assistance.
The policy could affect applications for green cards, visas and admission to the United States. It is scheduled to take effect Friday.
The states’ lawsuit also includes the District of Columbia. New York Attorney General Letitia James is leading the state-level challenge, while New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is heading a separate coalition of local governments preparing a similar lawsuit.
The legal actions seek to stop the rule before it changes how federal officials apply the immigration law’s “public charge” provision.
What the Public Charge Standard Means
The public charge provision allows the federal government to deny admission or permanent residence to certain immigrants if officials conclude they are likely to become dependent on government assistance.
The concept dates to the Immigration Act of 1882, when lawmakers sought to ensure that immigrants entering the country could support themselves.
For many years, immigration authorities primarily considered cash assistance, including Supplemental Security Income and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, as well as government-funded long-term institutional care.
The new rule rescinds much of the Biden administration’s 2022 policy and permits officers to consider a broader range of means-tested benefits received on or after its effective date. The official rule says public-benefit use must be evaluated as part of the applicant’s total circumstances rather than treated as automatically disqualifying.
Non-Cash Benefits Could Be Considered
The revised policy does not provide a narrow list of programs that immigration officers must evaluate. Instead, it says DHS “will consider the receipt of any means tested public benefits.”
That language could allow officers to consider non-cash assistance such as Medicaid, food benefits and housing support.
DHS says receiving Medicaid or another means-tested benefit will not, by itself, determine the outcome of an immigration application. Officers would consider the type, amount, duration and timing of the assistance, along with the reason it was received.
They would also review the applicant’s age, health, family circumstances, financial resources, education and employment skills before reaching a decision.
New York Says the Rule Will Frighten Families
James argues that the policy will cause legally eligible immigrants and mixed-status families to avoid government assistance because they fear consequences for their immigration status.
“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 release. “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.”
The rule primarily concerns immigrants who have legal status and are applying for admission or adjustment of status. Undocumented immigrants generally are not eligible for most federal public-benefit programs.
States Allege DHS Exceeded Its Authority
The state plaintiffs argue that DHS exceeded its authority by adopting a broader interpretation of the public charge provision without additional authorization from Congress.
They also describe the rule as “arbitrary and capricious,” a legal standard used to challenge federal agency actions that allegedly lack adequate reasoning or consideration of relevant evidence.
According to the lawsuit, DHS failed to justify the broader policy sufficiently and did not adequately account for its possible consequences for families, state governments, health systems and local economies.
The complaint was filed Monday morning in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. It does not request financial compensation. Instead, the plaintiffs want the court to block enforcement, invalidate the rule and prevent DHS from using it in immigration decisions.
The filed complaint confirms that the challenge targets the new public charge framework and its expanded treatment of means-tested assistance.
Policy Has Shifted Between Administrations
The first Trump administration expanded the public charge framework in 2020 to include programs such as Medicaid, food stamps and housing vouchers.
The Biden administration adopted a different rule in 2022 that generally excluded non-cash assistance from consideration and restored the narrower standard that had been used for years.
The latest Trump administration rule rescinds much of the 2022 framework. It gives individual immigration officers greater discretion to evaluate an applicant’s benefit use as part of the totality of that person’s circumstances.
Before the new rule’s effective date, DHS says it will generally continue considering only the categories covered by the 2022 policy. After the effective date, officers may consider applications for, approval to receive or actual receipt of any means-tested public benefit by the immigration applicant.
Benefits Used by Family Members Raise Concerns
Immigration advocates are especially concerned about mixed-status households in which some relatives are immigrants and others, including children, are U.S. citizens.
The rule does not generally treat a benefit received by another household member as if it were received directly by the immigration applicant. However, DHS says a family member’s benefits may become relevant in limited circumstances.
For example, officers may consider whether benefits received by a relative provide the applicant’s financial support. They may also examine an applicant’s income if that person is legally responsible for supporting a family member whose eligibility for assistance is based on the applicant’s low income.
DHS says it generally will not collect information about benefits received by anyone other than the person applying for adjustment of status. It also acknowledges, however, that uncertainty surrounding the rule could lead relatives to leave or avoid benefit programs even when they remain eligible.
Cities Prepare a Separate Lawsuit
Mamdani is expected to announce a similar challenge involving several local governments, including Chicago, San Francisco and Seattle.
California’s Santa Clara County and Washington’s King County are also expected to participate. Like the states, the local governments argue that the rule could discourage families from obtaining medical treatment or applying for legally available assistance.
“The new public charge rule seeks to push immigrant families away from the programs that have kept people fed and healthy for decades. New Yorkers will be afraid to see a doctor or ask for help they are legally entitled to,” Mamdani said in a release. “That fear will not stop at the families that the federal government is targeting. Families who remain fully eligible for benefits will feel a chilling effect, and all New Yorkers will pay for it.”
Cities with large immigrant populations say they would face particularly significant effects because their budgets and public health systems rely heavily on federal funding.
States Warn of Financial Consequences
The plaintiffs contend that widespread disenrollment could reduce federal payments flowing to state health and assistance programs.
They also anticipate higher administrative costs as government agencies attempt to explain the policy, correct misinformation and help families determine whether using a benefit could affect an immigration proceeding.
If people avoid preventive health care, nutrition assistance or other support, the states argue that the consequences could extend to hospitals, schools, local businesses and public safety agencies.
“Defendants estimate that nationwide, states will lose an estimated $4.05 billion in annual transfer payments from the federal government for the States’ Medicaid and CHIP programs alone,” the lawsuit states. “Of that nationwide total, Plaintiff States stand to lose approximately $2.2 billion in reduced federal payments.”
New York says it is especially exposed because of its large immigrant population, extensive benefit programs, universal school meals and reliance on federal Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program funding.
DHS Says Benefits Are Only One Consideration
In the final rule, DHS acknowledges that the expanded policy could cause some immigrants to exercise greater caution before seeking Medicaid, CHIP, food, housing and other assistance.
The department nevertheless argues that Congress intended immigration officials to examine whether an applicant is likely to become a public charge. It maintains that considering a broader range of means-tested benefits is consistent with that responsibility.
DHS also emphasizes that benefit use does not automatically make an applicant inadmissible. Officers must weigh it alongside all other relevant circumstances, and benefits available regardless of income—including unemployment insurance, veterans’ benefits, government pensions and certain Social Security payments—are not covered by the means-tested standard.
CNN reported that it contacted DHS for additional comment on the litigation.
Plaintiffs Include 22 States and Washington, D.C.
In addition to New York and the District of Columbia, the state-level lawsuit includes:
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- Hawaii
- Illinois
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Nevada
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- Wisconsin
The case now places the rule’s future before a federal court, which will determine whether it may take effect while the broader legal challenge proceeds.
Read more tech & science news