A coalition of 22 states and major U.S. cities has filed a lawsuit to block a sweeping new Trump administration rule. Set to take effect this Friday, the policy gives immigration officers unprecedented discretion to deny green cards and visas based on an applicant's use—or potential use—of government aid.
Led by New York Attorney General Letitia James and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, the legal challenge targets a major expansion of the historical "public charge" rule.
What is Changing?
Under U.S. immigration law dating back to 1882, officials can block applicants deemed likely to become dependent on government assistance. Historically, this only applied to cash assistance, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
The Trump administration's pending rule expands this definition dramatically:
- Non-Cash Benefits Allowed: Officers can now consider use of Medicaid, SNAP (food stamps), housing vouchers, and even school meal programs.
- No Specific Safety Nets Exempted: Unlike previous versions, the new rule does not list which safety nets are considered, giving officers broad authority over "any means-tested public benefits."
- Family Members Count: Immigration officers can evaluate benefits applied for on behalf of family members, including U.S. citizen children.
Notably, the rule focuses on individuals who already have legal status in the U.S. Undocumented immigrants are already ineligible for these public benefits.
Why States Are Suing
The coalition of states—including California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Washington—argues that the rule will trigger a massive "chilling effect." They warn that fear of immigration consequences will force families to unenroll from vital health and nutrition programs, even if they are legally eligible.
"Cruelty is the point," New York AG Letitia James stated, arguing that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is exceeding its congressional authority.
The states also face severe economic fallout. The lawsuit estimates that states could lose $2.2 billion in federal funding for Medicaid and CHIP alone as frightened families opt out of safety net programs.
The Federal Response
The Trump administration has defended the policy as a return to core American values of self-reliance.
In an emailed statement, DHS accused sanctuary states of being "terrified they will lose federal funds" because hundreds of thousands of people might remove themselves from safety net programs. DHS emphasized its goal of "reaffirming the requirement of self-reliance" and "ending policies that encouraged dependency on hard-working American taxpayers."
The lawsuit, filed in the Southern District of New York, asks the court to declare the rule unlawful before its scheduled Friday rollout.
