Over 20 States Sue Trump Administration Over New Public Charge Rule

More than 20 states, along with Washington D.C., have filed lawsuits challenging a new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rule that grants immigration officials broader authority to deny visas and green cards based on an applicant's potential to become a "public charge." The rule, which was set to take effect Friday, expands the list of public benefits that officials can consider when determining if an immigrant is likely to depend on government assistance.

New York Attorney General Letitia James led a coalition of 21 states and the District of Columbia in filing a lawsuit, asserting that the rule unfairly penalizes immigrants for utilizing public assistance. A separate lawsuit was filed by a coalition of cities, led by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

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. She also expressed concern that the policy could foster fear within immigrant families, discouraging them from interacting with government services.

The public charge provision applies to immigrants seeking admission to the U.S. or adjusting their status. While most undocumented immigrants are ineligible for federal means-tested benefits, exceptions exist under federal and state law. The states contend that the new rule could lead to billions of dollars in federal funding losses if immigrants forgo essential programs due to fear of negative immigration consequences.

Under the Biden administration's 2022 public charge rule, officials primarily considered 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. The new rule, however, does not specify a fixed list of benefits, allowing officers to consider the receipt of "any means-tested public benefits" at their discretion.

David Bier, Director of Immigration Studies at the Cato Institute, noted that the rule's broad discretion could lead to arbitrary denials. "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," Bier told Fox News Digital. He added that the lack of a clearly defined standard makes it difficult for applicants and their legal representatives to understand the law.

The lawsuits argue that DHS is overstepping its authority and that Congress did not approve such a broad interpretation of public charge. Critics also claim the agency ignored the potential negative consequences of the policy change.

New York Attorney General James characterized the rule as "cruel," stating that its aim is to create a "chilling effect on immigrants" and signal that they are unwelcome. DHS did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

This rule is part of a broader immigration enforcement strategy under the Trump administration, which has also imposed restrictions on legal immigration pathways, including increased fees for certain work visas and limitations on the duration of stay for international students and journalists. The administration has also pursued visa revocations based on political activity and speech.

Previously, U.S. embassies and consulates worldwide temporarily postponed immigrant visa interviews to allow consular officers to complete training on new public charge guidance, impacting applications at the interview stage.

Bier highlighted that the rule is likely to affect the spouses of U.S. citizens and their children seeking green cards, potentially leading to family separations.

The public charge provision originated with the Immigration Act of 1882, aiming to ensure immigrants would not become a burden on public resources. While previous administrations have expanded or narrowed the scope of benefits considered, the current rule represents a significant shift towards broader discretion for immigration officials.