Full Breakdown
States and Cities Challenge Trump Administration’s Expanded “Public Charge” Rule
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Event
A coalition of 22 Democratic-led states, the District of Columbia, and a separate alliance of major cities have filed lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to block a Department of Homeland Security rule that will take effect September 18. The rule expands the “public charge” ground—used to deny visas or green cards—to allow immigration officers to consider any means-tested public benefit (including Medicaid, SNAP, housing vouchers, and benefits used by U.S. citizen family members) when assessing an applicant’s likelihood of future dependence on government assistance.
Background & Context
The public-charge provision dates to the Immigration Act of 1882. Under the 2022 Biden administration, the standard was limited to cash assistance for income maintenance and long-term institutional care. President Trump’s first term broadened the test to include non-cash benefits; that rule was later struck down. The current rule, announced in the Federal Register on July 16, removes any enumerated list, granting officers “broad discretion” to evaluate any means-tested benefit.
Data & Statistics
- DHS projects families avoiding benefits could cut federal and state payments by about $13 billion a year.
- Estimated reductions include $4.05 billion in Medicaid and CHIP transfers and $1.02 billion in SNAP transfers annually.
- Plaintiffs cite potential losses of $575 million in SNAP payments for some states.
- The rule could affect roughly 950,000 people who might disenroll from or avoid public benefits, according to DHS.
Official Statements & Responses
- Letitia James, New York Attorney General, said the rule “preys on fear” and would force families to forgo legally entitled assistance.
- Phil Weiser, Colorado Attorney General, described the rule as “weaponizing the public charge test” and warned it would strain hospitals, schools, and state budgets.
Criticism & Opposition
State and local officials contend the rule is arbitrary and capricious, exceeds DHS’s statutory authority, and violates the Administrative Procedure Act. They argue it will create a chilling effect, prompting eligible immigrants to avoid health care, nutrition assistance, and school meals, thereby increasing emergency-room usage and reducing federal reimbursements to states. The lawsuits also claim the rule departs from the long-standing congressional meaning of the public-charge provision.
Verbatim Quotes
- “Hardworking families should not be forced to go without the support they need because they fear asking for assistance will get them deported,” — Letitia James, New York Attorney General
- “The new public charge rule seeks to push immigrant families away from the programs that have kept people fed and healthy for decades,” — Zohran Mamdani, New York City mayor
- “The administration’s unlawful rule weaponizes the public charge test to harm legal immigrant children and families and cause fear, confusion and uncertainty about accessing benefits they are legally entitled to receive,” — Phil Weiser, Colorado Attorney General
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
The DHS estimate of a $13 billion annual loss differs from its own breakdown of $5.07 billion (Medicaid + SNAP) and from state-level projections of “billions” in lost funding. Sources do not reconcile these figures, leaving the precise fiscal impact uncertain.
What’s Next
The lawsuits seek a court order to declare the September 18 rule unlawful and to vacate it. No hearing dates have been scheduled, and the rule remains slated to become effective as planned.