New York Leads 22 States and DC Against Trump Public Charge Rule

The coalition is seeking to halt the Trump administration’s new public charge rule before it takes effect, arguing that it would expand what immigration officials may consider when evaluating certain applications.

New York is leading a coalition of 21 other states and Washington, DC, in a lawsuit seeking to block the Trump administration’s new public charge immigration rule.

• Why it matters: The policy could affect certain applications for permanent residence or admission to the United States, while states fear that families will stop using public benefits because of concerns about immigration consequences.

Public Charge Rule Expands What Immigration Officials Can Consider

States sue Trump administration to block a new DHS rule that would make it harder for some immigrants to get green cards. https://t.co/RquzrKdHHo https://t.co/z1eam8xue5

— CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) September 14, 2026

The public charge test is an immigration criterion used to assess whether a person is likely to depend primarily on the government for support.

The new Department of Homeland Security rule is scheduled to take effect September 18 and would replace regulations adopted in 2022.

Under the 2022 rules, the evaluation was generally limited to certain cash assistance intended to maintain income and government-funded long-term institutionalization.

The Trump administration’s policy would permit officials to consider a broader range of public benefits when evaluating the circumstances of certain applicants.

• What would change: According to the lawsuit, benefits involving food assistance, healthcare coverage, and school meals could be considered.
• The limit: Receiving public benefits would not automatically result in the rejection of an immigration application; it would be one factor in a broader assessment.

The administration argues that the change restores the principle of immigrant self-sufficiency and protects public resources.

States Warn of a Chilling Effect on Families

New York Attorney General Letitia James argues that the policy could cause families to stop using benefits for which they are legally eligible.

“Working families should not be forced to forgo the support they need because they fear that seeking help will get them deported,” James said.

The concern is particularly significant in mixed-status households, where family members may have different immigration statuses and some children may be US citizens.

• Who could be affected: The dispute concerns people subject to the public charge assessment; it does not mean that every immigrant who uses public benefits would automatically face immigration consequences.
• Potential state impact: The plaintiffs anticipate additional administrative costs and possible funding losses if families withdraw from programs because of fear.

New York also argues that declining enrollment in programs such as Medicaid and SNAP could have broader consequences for schools, businesses, and public systems.

Trump Administration and States Clash Over Self-Sufficiency

DHS argues that immigrants should demonstrate their ability to support themselves and that the policy is intended to prevent dependence on taxpayer-funded resources.

The states counter that the federal government is expanding the public charge concept too broadly and that DHS exceeded the authority granted to it by Congress.

The lawsuit also alleges that the rule is “arbitrary and capricious,” a legal argument supporting the states’ request to have it set aside under the Administrative Procedure Act.

• The dispute: The case concerns not only which benefits applicants receive, but also how much discretion immigration officials should have to consider those benefits.

Judge Will Decide Whether Trump’s Public Charge Rule Can Take Effect

The lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. New York is also leading a separate legal action alongside cities and local governments.

The coalition is asking the court to declare the rule unlawful and set it aside.

The outcome will determine whether the policy can take effect as planned or whether it will be halted during the legal dispute.

• What’s next: The rule is scheduled to take effect September 18 unless a court decision changes or delays its implementation.

The legal battle will determine how broadly the federal government may apply the public charge test and whether the states can stop a policy they say could affect immigration decisions and access to public benefits for some families.

You May Be Interested In: Supreme Court Blocks Trump Mail-In Voting Rules Before Elections

SOURCE: The Center Square / CNN