IMMIGRATION
States, cities sue over Trump rule seeking to deny green cards to immigrants using public benefits
NEW YORK 鈥� Democratic-led states and cities filed lawsuits Monday challenging a federal rule set to begin Friday that they say gives President Donald Trump鈥檚 administration broad discretion to deny green cards to who rely on public assistance for food, healthcare, housing and other basic needs.
New York Attorney General , who is leading a coalition of 21 other states in , said the rule would force needy immigrant families to choose between seeking assistance and seeking legal status in the country. California, Colorado, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico and Wisconsin are among the states involved in the legal challenge.
鈥淭his rule preys on that fear and counts on families forfeiting the food assistance, healthcare coverage, and other public benefits to which they are legally entitled,鈥� she said Monday at a news conference in City Hall alongside New York City Mayor and immigrant advocates.
Mamdani filed a with leaders of other U.S. cities, including Chicago, San Francisco and Seattle. He said the rule would have a 鈥渃hilling effect鈥� not just on immigrants seeking legal status but other residents of the nation鈥檚 largest city.
鈥淭he new public charge rule seeks to push immigrant families away from the programs that have kept people fed and healthy for decades,鈥� the mayor said. 鈥淣ew Yorkers will be afraid to see a doctor or ask for help they are legally entitled to. That fear will not stop at the families that the federal government is targeting.鈥�
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which is named in the lawsuits, dismissed the dire warnings.
鈥淟et鈥檚 get this straight, sanctuary states are terrified they will lose federal funds because hundreds of thousands of illegals and noncitizens might remove themselves from American welfare programs,鈥� the agency said in a statement. 鈥淲e鈥檙e shaking in our boots over this supposedly terrible outcome.鈥�
The lawsuits challenge DHS鈥檚 a 鈥減ublic charge鈥� rule the Republican president during his first term, only to have it under his successor, Democratic President Joe Biden.
The lawsuits, which were both filed in federal court in Manhattan, argue the new rule is 鈥渁rbitrary and capricious,鈥� exceeds the DHS鈥檚 statutory authority, and departs from the longstanding meaning of the federal government鈥檚 public charge provision.
Specifically, James said, the rule unlawfully gives immigration officials broad discretion to consider a wide range of public benefits when making their decisions on immigrants seeking legal status in the country.
She said the rule lets immigration officers count nearly any public benefit, used for any length of time, against a green card applicant 鈥� even if it鈥檚 a U.S. citizen family member who is taking advantage of the benefit.
That means a parent鈥檚 green card application could be at risk simply because their U.S. citizen child used state-provided health insurance or participated in a school鈥檚 free lunch program, James said.
鈥淭his new rule sweeps away more than a century of settled law to unlawfully broaden the definition of 鈥榩ublic charge鈥� in a way that Congress never intended,鈥� added Steve Banks, the city鈥檚 corporation counsel.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta called the rule a 鈥渃ruel policy.鈥�
Federal law already requires those seeking permanent residency or legal status to demonstrate they will not rely on public benefits.
The new rule does not specify the programs that could be taken into account. It simply says officers, 鈥渦sing good judgment and discretion,鈥� will make 鈥渋ndividualized, fact-specific public charge inadmissible determinations, based on a totality of the alien鈥檚 circumstances.鈥�
