Two new legal challenges seeking to block the Trump Administration’s revised public charge rule arose on Monday, one filed by a coalition of 22 states and the other by a small group of cities and counties that includes Chicago, New York, San Francisco and Seattle.
The challenges come as the rule, which is set to take effect on Friday, would expand the range of public benefits that immigration officials may consider when reviewing applications to enter the US. The change applies only to immigrants who are in the US legally, making undocumented immigrants not eligible for benefits.
The public charge rule requires prospective immigrants to demonstrate that they will not become public charges, or persons who depend on the government for subsistence. Under President Biden, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) applied a standard of “primarily dependent,” meaning that immigrants could receive a wide range of public benefits as long as they were not primarily dependent on those benefits. For example, they could receive non-cash benefits, like food stamps and Medicaid, without risking their eligibility to enter and remain in the US.
The Trump Administration’s revision, published in the Federal Register on July 16, does not specify which public benefits will be evaluated as possible forms of dependency. Instead, it says only that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) “will consider the receipt of any means tested public benefits.” Immigration officers will also be allowed to consider benefits for family members, even those who are already US citizens, including children.
Both lawsuits allege that the rule change is arbitrary, capricious, and a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Both also say that the new rule will harm public health by deterring immigrants from using health insurance, which includes Medicaid, eating healthy food, and using vouchers to find safe housing. Cities and states say that they will bear the increased costs of providing for immigrants without federal reimbursement and without taxes collected from wages. Both suits ask the US District Court for the Southern District of New York to vacate the new rule.
The states’ lawsuit also denies the administration’s claims that the new rule is consistent with the intent of Congress in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which reformed America’s welfare system. According to the suit, the new rule is also inconsistent with the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which strengthened immigration enforcement and border control.
The public charge rule was also the basis for an administration ban on immigrant visas for citizens of 75 countries. A judge for the US District Court for the Southern District of New York struck down the ban in August.