A coalition of 22 states in the United States (US) and major metropolitan cities has filed lawsuits against the Donald Trump administration to block a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rule which gives immigration authorities unprecedented access to deny green cards, visas, and legal entry to immigrants deemed likely to depend on public assistance.
The ‘public charge’ provision originates from the Immigration Act of 1882, historically designed to ensure non-citizens do not become primary wards of the state.
Leading the state coalition, Letitia James, New York Attorney General and Zohran Mamdani, City mayor announced the dual filings at Manhattan’s City Hall.
According to them, the administrative shift is a deliberate attempt to disenfranchise legal immigrant communities and destabilize state safety nets.
‘The rule would allow immigration officers to consider use of critical benefits like Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and even participation in school meal programs, as part of an applicant’s circumstance,’ James said. ‘That means immigrant New Yorkers may be forced to ask themselves impossible questions such as: ‘Will getting health insurance hurt my chances of getting a green card? Will accepting food assistance when I fall on hard times be held against me?’.
For decades, federal evaluation focused strictly on direct financial aid such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
While the first Trump administration broadened these criteria in 2020, the Biden administration rescinded those changes in 2022, restoring the traditional standard.
The legal action, filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, targets a dynamic expansion of the long-standing public charge doctrine.
The revised DHS rule broadens the list of non-cash government safety net programs, including Medicaid, housing vouchers, and SNAP benefits that can disqualify an applicant from securing permanent legal status.
The pending 2026 DHS rule goes beyond prior iterations. Rather than listing explicit disqualified programs, it states that immigration officials ‘will consider the receipt of any means-tested public benefits.’ Further, the policy allows adjudicators to penalize applicants if benefits were accessed on behalf of family members, including US-born citizen children.
Federal estimates indicate that roughly 588,000 applicants undergo public charge evaluations annually.
According to court documents, the fiscal ramifications for state governments could be severe.
State plaintiffs project a collective loss of $2.2 billion in federal transfer payments for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) as immigrant families preemptively unenroll to avoid immigration penalties. Nationwide, federal transfer losses to states are estimated to reach $4.05 billion annually.
The lawsuit asserts that DHS exceeded its statutory authority without congressional authorization, characterizing the regulatory update as arbitrary.
The state coalition, comprising New York, California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Michigan, Washington, the District of Columbia, and 14 other state attorneys general, is now seeking an immediate judicial injunction to halt implementation before Friday’s deadline.