NYC leads lawsuit over Trump rule linking benefits to green cards
A coalition of six local governments led by New York City sued the Trump administration Monday to block a new rule concerning immigration, arguing it could jeopardize green card applications and frighten families away from assistance for which they are legally eligible.
The new rule, set to take effect Sept. 18, gives immigration officers greater freedom to consider whether applicants have used public benefits available based on income. Now, New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, Santa Clara County, California, Seattle and King County, Washington, want a federal judge to vacate a rule they say unlawfully rewrites immigration law and would strain local governments, hospitals and schools while inflicting broader economic damage.
“Denying people services does not erase their need; it compounds it, generating a greater cost to our system that will be placed on the backs of working people for years to come,” New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani said during a Sept. 14 news conference. “Nothing about this rule will reduce waste or keep Americans safer or improve New Yorkers' lives. It is simply a vehicle for confusion and a vehicle for cruelty.”
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Manhattan on Sept. 14, names the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the leaders of both agencies as defendants. DHS did not immediately respond to USA TODAY's request for comment.
The complaint says the rule leaves families guessing about which benefits could be used against them. The cities say that uncertainty is already prompting people — including some who are not covered by the rule — to avoid health care and other assistance for which they qualify rather than risk their future in the United States.
Using Medicaid or food assistance would not automatically lead to a denial. But it could become one strike against someone seeking a green card or certain visas, along with their age, health, job and finances. The policy does not clearly spell out which programs could count. Federal guidance names everything from food and housing assistance to tax credits and college financial aid.
The rule largely targets people seeking to enter the country legally or secure permanent status, including many already living legally in the United States. Undocumented immigrants generally cannot receive the federal benefits at the center of the dispute.
But the local governments say the consequences could extend well beyond the immigrants whose applications are reviewed.
In Chicago, fewer residents with Medicaid could mean less federal reimbursement for ambulance services provided by the city’s fire department, leaving the city to shoulder more of the cost, according to the lawsuit.
In New York, the public hospital system estimates that more than 16,000 patients could lose Medicaid coverage under one projected scenario. That could cost the system tens of millions of dollars in its first year as more uninsured patients seek care.
“People don’t stop getting sick,” Mamdani said. “People simply will get more sick, and then the first time that they will interact with a health care provider will be at the emergency room.”
New York City health researchers also modeled how the policy could affect immigrants younger than 65 and U.S.-citizen children in mixed-status households. Over five years, they projected that access to primary care could fall by as much as 9.9% and premature deaths could rise by as much as 10.6%.
Even the Trump administration expects the rule to have wider effects. In its economic analysis of the rule, DHS estimated that families leaving or avoiding assistance programs could reduce federal and state benefit payments by about $13 billion a year. The department acknowledged that hospitals, grocery stores, farmers and landlords could also feel the loss.
At the center of the fight is the meaning of “public charge,” a term in federal immigration law for someone considered likely to become dependent on the government. The provision dates to the Immigration Act of 1882, but for decades officials generally focused on cash assistance for income and government-funded, long-term institutional care when deciding who met that definition.
President Donald Trump broadened the test during his first term to include several other forms of assistance, including food benefits, certain Medicaid coverage and housing subsidies. The policy prompted lawsuits and widespread confusion before taking effect in 2020.
The Biden administration reversed the expansion in 2022, returning to a narrower standard that excluded most noncash benefits.
Now, the second Trump administration is broadening the test again to include “any means-tested public benefits.” DHS argued that the Biden-era standard was “unduly restrictive” and hampered officers’ ability to accurately decide who was likely to become a public charge. The department said the new policy allows officers to examine each applicant’s individual circumstances.
The cities and counties argue the administration has instead erased clear limits and given individual officers too much power, opening the door to unpredictable or discriminatory decisions.
They also say the rule could spread fear among people it does not directly cover. In some circumstances, officers may consider assistance received by an applicant’s child or another household member. The rule itself does not change who qualifies for benefits.
Past experience suggests those fears can change families’ behavior. One study found that food-aid participation fell disproportionately among noncitizens after Trump’s first public-charge expansion was announced, although nearly all were likely exempt. Another linked the earlier policy push to delayed prenatal Medicaid coverage among immigrant mothers in New York and lower birth weights among some newborns.
Advocacy groups praised the legal challenge.
“This dangerous regulation is a direct assault on immigrant families, and a threat to our country’s health and economic security, and we hope the court will act quickly to strike it down,” Adriana Cadena, executive director of the Protecting Immigrant Families Coalition, wrote in a statement.
New York Attorney General Letitia James led a separate group of 21 states and the District of Columbia in filing another challenge to the rule on Sept. 14. That coalition also argues the rule exceeds DHS’s authority, departs from the meaning established by Congress and was adopted without adequate justification.
The policy, James added, would force immigrant families across the country to face “impossible questions.”
“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? Will my children be able to eat at lunchtime in the cafeteria in a mixed-status family?” James said. “No family should have to grapple with these questions.”
