A broad coalition of 22 US states and the District of Columbia launched a formidable legal challenge on Monday against the administration of US President Donald Trump, seeking to block a controversial expansion of the federal “public charge” immigration rule.
The measure links lawful permanent residency to the use of domestic assistance programmes. Filed in federal court, the lawsuit targets a Department of Homeland Security directive scheduled to take effect on September 18.
Under the updated framework, immigration adjudicators are granted sweeping discretion to weigh an applicant’s historical or prospective receipt of means-tested benefits, including Medicaid, food stamps under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and housing vouchers, when evaluating green card applications. Legal representatives for the plaintiff states argue that the measure exceeds executive authority and inflicts profound harm on public welfare systems nationwide, sources told CNN.
Spearheading the legal offensive, New York Attorney General Letitia James condemned the policy during a press briefing, highlighting the immediate humanitarian and administrative fallout expected across urban centres and rural communities alike.
“Hardworking families should not be forced to go without the support they need because they fear asking for assistance will get them deported,” James told the US-based network. “This rule preys on that fear and counts on families forfeiting the food assistance, health care coverage, and other public benefits to which they are legally entitled. My office fought this exact policy once before and won, and we are leading the nation to ensure the Trump administration cannot inflict this harm on families again.”
States Sue Trump Green Card Rule: Why Are State Officials Challenging Expanded Public Charge Policy?
According to court documents submitted by the multi-state coalition, the policy change introduces an unprecedented level of administrative scrutiny that diverges sharply from historical legislative intent.
The filing points out that Congress never intended for the public charge ground of inadmissibility to penalise immigrants or their household members who temporarily utilise supplemental assistance to which they are legally entitled. As per sources, unlike previous iterations, the new guidelines allow officials to review benefits utilised by family members living under the same roof, including US citizen children who possess statutory entitlements to healthcare and nutritional support.
States Sue Trump Green Card Rule: What Financial And Public Health Impacts Do US Cities And States Fear?
Beyond the immediate legal arguments, municipal and state leaders caution that the policy will trigger a severe chilling effect, causing eligible individuals to disengage or withdraw entirely from essential medical and nutritional programmes out of deportation anxiety.
Joining the state-level litigation, a parallel lawsuit filed by a coalition of municipal leaders, led by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani alongside counterparts in Chicago, Seattle, and San Francisco, emphasised the municipal cost of reduced healthcare access.
“The new public charge rule seeks to push immigrant families away from the programmes that have kept people fed and healthy for decades,” Mayor Mamdani remarked. “New 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. Families who remain fully eligible for benefits will feel a chilling effect, and all New Yorkers will pay for it.”
States Sue Trump Green Card Rule: How Does The New Regulation Alter Green Card Application Process?
The US Department of Homeland Security defends the revised regulatory framework as a necessary measure to ensure that prospective immigrants achieve self-sufficiency and do not become primarily dependent on public resources.
However, American advocacy groups and US state attorneys general contend that the rule weaponises welfare programmes against legal applicants.
The litigation argues that the resulting drop in Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program enrolment will cost state governments billions of dollars in federal funding while degrading overall community health standards. As the September 18 effective date approaches, swift motions for preliminary injunctions are being anticipated as US federal courts weigh whether to halt implementation while the litigation proceeds.
