.jpg "HCPH-Riverside-0708-1870×125-Spa (1)")
A coalition of 22 states and the District of Columbia sued Monday to stop the Trump public charge rule from taking effect. The policy could make it harder for some immigrants using public benefits to receive green cards.
The Department of Homeland Security scheduled the rule to take effect Sept. 18. Unless a court intervenes, immigration officers will receive broader authority to consider public assistance during certain visa and residency decisions.
What the Trump Public Charge Rule Changes
Federal immigration law allows the government to deny admission or permanent residency to someone considered likely to become a “public charge.” The term generally refers to a person expected to depend primarily on government assistance.
A 2022 regulation limited the benefits officers could consider. Those included certain cash assistance programs and long-term institutional care paid by the government.
The Trump administration’s rule rescinds those limits. Officers could consider all means-tested public benefits received by applicants covered by the public charge standard.
The federal rule does not provide a complete list of programs that could affect an application. Instead, officers would examine each person’s circumstances, including the type, amount and duration of assistance.
Programs discussed in the Federal Register notice include Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, SNAP food assistance, housing assistance and WIC.
The policy would apply nationwide, including in Texas.
States Challenge Green Card Policy
New York Attorney General Letitia James is leading the lawsuit with California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul.
Other participating states include Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan and Minnesota. Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania also joined.
Texas is not part of the coalition.
The states filed their complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. They want the court to declare the rule unlawful and prevent DHS from using it.
A separate coalition of local governments filed another lawsuit in the same court. That group includes New York City, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, Santa Clara County and King County, Washington.
The plaintiffs argue that the administration exceeded its legal authority. They also describe the rule as arbitrary and inconsistent with the traditional meaning of “public charge.”
Families Could Avoid Available Benefits
State and local officials say the rule could discourage immigrant families from using programs for which they legally qualify.
The lawsuits also raise concerns about mixed-status families. These households may include immigrants alongside U.S. citizens, including children.
Officials argue that some benefits used by family members could become part of an applicant’s review. A parent, for example, could worry that a citizen child’s health coverage or school meals might affect a green card application.
DHS acknowledged that reduced enrollment could affect immigrants and U.S. citizens in mixed-status households. However, the department said broader reviews would better follow federal law.
The administration says applicants should demonstrate financial self-sufficiency. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said officers would examine all relevant facts individually.
Lawsuits Do Not Automatically Stop the Rule
Filing a lawsuit does not immediately suspend a federal policy. A judge must issue an order blocking the rule before its Sept. 18 effective date.
The new policy also does not apply to every immigrant or every type of immigration application. Public charge rules contain exemptions, and individual circumstances can differ significantly.
Immigrant families should not cancel health coverage, food assistance or other benefits solely because of general information online. Anyone concerned about an application should consult a qualified immigration attorney or a federally recognized nonprofit legal provider.
The court’s response could determine whether the administration may begin using the expanded standard. Until then, affected families should monitor official updates and seek trusted legal guidance before changing their benefits.