States and Cities Sue to Block New Public-Charge Rule
Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia, along with a separate coalition of cities and counties, sued the Trump administration on Monday, September 14, seeking to block a new Department of Homeland Security rule on public-charge determinations.
The lawsuits were filed separately in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, four days before the rule is scheduled to take effect. The cases challenge DHS’s decision to rescind most of the 2022 public-charge regulations and restore broader case-by-case discretion in certain applications for admission or adjustment of status.
What DHS is changing
DHS published the final rule on July 20, 2026. The Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review says it is scheduled to take effect September 18 and apply to applications for admission made on or after that date, or adjustment-of-status applications postmarked or submitted electronically on or after that date.
Under the new framework, immigration officers may consider the mandatory statutory factors, an applicant’s receipt of means-tested public benefits, other individualized case-specific information and relevant empirical data in a totality-of-the-circumstances assessment.
DHS says benefit use alone is not automatically disqualifying. The agency also says benefits received by family members generally are not counted unless they are shown to support the applicant. The rule concerns public-charge inadmissibility decisions for certain people seeking admission or adjustment to lawful permanent resident status; it is not a general rule covering every immigrant or every recipient of public assistance.
The rule removes much of the detailed structure adopted in 2022, including specified benefit limits, listed exemptions, regulatory definitions and the earlier determination framework. DHS says the change will allow more individualized assessments.
DHS’s regulatory analysis estimates that some people in mixed-status households may disenroll from or forgo enrollment in public-benefit programs, potentially reducing federal and state transfer payments by about $13.05 billion annually. The agency describes that figure as an estimate and says enrollment changes could also be affected by other policy changes, including changes to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
What the lawsuits argue
The state-led complaint alleges that DHS exceeded its statutory authority and violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The states argue that the rule is arbitrary and capricious, lacks meaningful safeguards and does not adequately address effects on states that administer or help finance health, food, housing and other assistance programs.
The complaint also raises concerns about how officers could treat benefits used by members of an applicant’s household, including U.S. citizens. That interpretation conflicts with DHS’s description of the rule, which generally excludes family-member benefits unless the agency determines they support the applicant. The disagreement is a central legal issue, not a settled interpretation by a court.
A separate lawsuit brought by cities and counties includes New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, Santa Clara County, Seattle and King County, Washington, with the Public Rights Project. The local governments allege that uncertainty around the rule could lead eligible families to avoid or leave benefit programs, creating administrative, health, education, public-safety and fiscal consequences.
Those claims are allegations in the complaints. No court has ruled that the rule is unlawful, and the rule does not automatically deny a visa or green card to every person who receives public benefits.
What happens next
The plaintiffs may seek temporary or preliminary relief to prevent the rule from taking effect while the cases proceed. DHS will have an opportunity to respond, and the courts will address both any emergency requests and the broader challenges to the rule’s validity.
The immediate date to watch is September 18. DOJ says receipt of means-tested public benefits before that date will be considered consistently with the 2022 framework. If the rule remains in effect, covered applications made on or after September 18 will be evaluated under the new framework.
People with immigration cases should not assume that receiving a qualifying benefit automatically makes an applicant inadmissible. Because the effect can depend on the specific application and household circumstances, applicants should consult a qualified immigration lawyer or accredited representative rather than rely on general headlines.
Sources
- DHS final rule in the Federal Register
- DOJ Federal Register notice index
- New York state-led complaint
- Associated Press report
Look for updates to this story
Discover more from Interactive News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.