Lawsuits Nationwide Challenge Trump’s Public Charge Rule

NEW YORK (AP) — The scene is playing out in courtrooms from coast to coast — federal judges being asked to block a new Trump administration policy scheduled to take effect next week that would deny legal permanent residency to immigrants who use public benefits.

Almost a dozen lawsuits have been filed from New York to California with plaintiffs including states, counties, cities, service providers and immigrants to prevent the "public charge" rule from taking effect on Oct. 15.

A judge in California held a hearing last week, while a judge in New York held one Monday, and others are scheduled for this week, with the lawsuits asking for preliminary injunctions to keep the rule from being enforced while challenges to its legality are heard. Judges have indicated willingness to issue rulings before the scheduled start date.

"I've litigated against federal and state agencies over the years and I've never seen anything like this," said Liz Schott of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which has been tracking the progress of the lawsuits. "It's a tremendously broad set of players, reflecting the huge significance and impact of the rule."

The rule is an aggressive step by the Trump administration to rewrite the nation's immigration policies with a focus on effectively denying permanent resident status to many legal immigrants through how it defines a "public charge."

Currently, legal immigrants seeking to become permanent residents (a step before being eligible to become naturalized citizens) must prove they will not be burdens to the country — or public charges — which in practice has been understood to mean becoming primarily dependent on cash assistance, income maintenance or government support for long-term institutionalization.

The Trump administration's rule takes that further — considering past and current use of a wide range of assistance, including Medicaid, food stamps, and housing vouchers, that are not currently considered, taking into account factors like the immigrant's age, employment status and English-language ability to determine whether they could become public burdens at any point in the future and denying them legal residency if officials decide the answer is yes.

Those changes have outraged immigrants and their advocates, who say there's already been a chilling effect from people who now are scared to ask for help they're eligible to get, for themselves or their relatives including citizen children, out of fear of what it could mean.

They've also said the rule changes are discriminatory and would have the effect of barring immigrants with lower incomes in favor of those with wealth. The government has said the rule changes would ensure that those gaining legal residency status are self-sufficient.

The scheduled enactment next week of the rule comes as the Trump administration last Friday announced another rule, a proclamation effective Nov. 3 that bars immigrants from coming to the United States unless they will be covered by health insurance within 30 days of entering or have the financial wherewithal to pay for any medical costs.

It’s an ironic stance from a government that has repeatedly attacked the Affordable Care Act, which helps provide health insurance for millions of U.S. citizens.

In a packed Manhattan courtroom on Monday, U.S. District Judge George Daniels extensively questioned the government's lawyer, Ethan Davis of the Department of Justice, over the rationale behind the administration's changing of the rule and the adding of factors that would be considered in determining whether someone could become a public charge.

"You've got to give me some rational basis," the judge said.

Roughly 544,000 people apply for green cards annually. According to the government, 382,000 are in categories that would make them subject to the new review.

Immigrants make up a small portion of those getting public benefits, since many are ineligible to get them because of their immigration status. An Associated Press analysis of census data shows that non-citizen immigrants with low incomes have a lower rate of using Medicaid, food aid, cash assistance and Supplemental Security Income than their native-born counterparts.

For Medicaid, non-citizen immigrants account for only 6.5% of participants, while more than 87% are native-born. For food assistance, immigrants make up 8.8% of recipients, with more than 85% of participants being native-born.

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit