Twenty Democrat-led states filed suit to block a Trump administration rule that would give immigration officials broader authority to deny green cards and visas to immigrants likely to become dependent on government assistance.
The rule, set to take effect Friday, expands the list of government aid programs immigration officers can consider when deciding whether an applicant constitutes a “public charge” — a statutory ground for denial dating back to the Immigration Act of 1882.
New York Attorney General Letitia James led the coalition of 21 states plus Washington, D.C., claiming the rule would punish legal immigrants for lawful use of public benefits. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani filed a separate suit with a coalition of cities.
“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 the rule would allow immigration officials to weigh an immigrant’s use of Medicaid, food stamps through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and even participation in school meal programs when determining public-charge status. She warned it could create fear among immigrant families about interacting with government agencies.
The states argue they stand to lose billions in federal funding if immigrants withdraw from programs out of fear the participation will be used against them in visa or green card proceedings.
The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a request for comment.
Under the Biden administration’s 2022 public charge rule, immigration officials generally considered only direct cash assistance for income maintenance — programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or Supplemental Security Income — plus government-funded long-term institutionalization.
The Trump administration’s new rule does not specify a fixed list of disqualifying benefits. Instead, it states officers may consider receipt of “any means-tested public benefits” as part of a public charge determination, giving immigration officers wide discretion in evaluating applicants.
David Bier, Director of Immigration Studies at the Cato Institute, said the lack of a defined standard creates uncertainty for applicants and their attorneys.
“The rule as it was before this new regulation was you had to be primarily dependent on certain government benefit programs. This rule removes that definition and doesn’t replace it with anything,” Bier told Fox News Digital. “So now people and applicants, lawyers who are applying to the government on behalf of applicants, they don’t know really what the law is.”
Bier said the states may have a strong legal argument. “I think from that standpoint the states have a good argument that we had a well defined public charge rule and the administration didn’t replace it with some other well defined rule, it replaced it with nothing. So now there’s just discretion to the officers to do whatever they want with the underlying statute. There’s no regulation that clearly says this is what it means to be a public charge in the United States.”
The states’ lawsuit argues DHS is exceeding its authority because Congress never approved a broader interpretation of public charge. The complaint claims the new rule is arbitrary and that the agency ignored harmful consequences of the change.
“CRUELTY IS THE POINT. HAVING A CHILLING EFFECT ON IMMIGRANTS IS THE POINT. LETTING INDIVIDUALS KNOW THAT THEY ARE NOT WELCOME HERE IS THE POINT.”
James accused the administration of “immigration animus” at a Monday press conference, saying the rule’s intent is to signal immigrants are unwelcome. “The fact that you’re going to deny individuals who are sick and hungry and homeless benefits just is beyond the pale,” she said.
The rule applies only to legal immigrants seeking admission or adjustment of status. Undocumented immigrants are already ineligible for most federal means-tested benefits, though limited exceptions exist under federal and state law.
Bier warned the rule could result in self-sufficient applicants being denied based on probabilistic assessments of future welfare use rather than current dependency. “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 in the United States. That’s a much more difficult assessment to make. That’s going to result in arbitrary denials.”
The public charge provision stems from the Immigration Act of 1882, when Congress sought to ensure immigrants would be able to support themselves without becoming a public burden.
The first Trump administration widened the categories of benefit programs that could trigger public-charge concerns, including Medicaid, food stamps, and housing vouchers. The Biden administration reversed that guidance in 2022, returning to the narrower cash-benefits standard.
The new rule is broader than the first Trump administration’s version — the earlier rule specified which safety nets should be considered, while the current rule gives officers open-ended discretion to consider “any means tested public benefits.”
“One of the most important things to understand is that during the first Trump administration, they had a public charge rule that was well defined that really did explain exactly what you were supposed to do in order to not be deemed a public charge or who was a public charge,” Bier said. “This is completely different from that. It’s essentially the Wild West. No one knows what’s going on, no one knows what the law is now.”
The Trump administration has pursued a broader immigration crackdown extending beyond illegal immigration to legal pathways. While Trump campaigned in 2024 on curbing illegal immigration, his administration has imposed additional restrictions on legal immigration, including higher fees for work visas and new limits on how long foreign students and journalists can remain in the U.S.
Last month, the administration directed U.S. embassies and consulates worldwide to postpone immigrant visa interviews while consular officers complete training on the new public charge guidance, temporarily stalling applications that had reached the interview stage.
Bier said the primary population affected will be spouses of U.S. citizens and their children applying for green cards. “That’s the overwhelming majority of the people who are going to be affected by the rule. It’s going to result in many of those immigrant families being separated from their American spouse or parent,” he said.
The lawsuits ask federal courts to declare the rule unlawful and prevent DHS from enforcing it.
