States sue to stop Trump rule that would make it harder for some immigrants to get green cards

New York and 21 other states are suing the Trump administration to block a new Department of Homeland Security rule that would give immigration officials wider discretion to deny green cards, visas or entry into the United States when determining whether applicants could become dependent on government aid.

The rule change, set to take effect Friday, likely would make it tougher for many immigrants to obtain green cards if they use or are deemed likely to need public benefits such as food stamps, Medicaid or housing vouchers.

New York State Attorney General Letitia James and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who is leading a coalition of cities filing a similar lawsuit, are expected to announce the legal action during a press conference at City Hall on Monday, James’ office said.

The states, whose lawsuit also includes the District of Columbia, argue they would lose billions of dollars in federal funding if immigrants, particularly mixed-status families, disenroll from programs due to fears about immigration consequences.

The lawsuit relates to pending changes to what’s known as the “public charge” rule, a provision of US immigration law that allows the government to deny a visa or green card to someone it determines is likely to become dependent on government assistance.

Historically, immigration officers counted only cash benefits, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or Supplemental Security Income from Social Security, in their evaluations. But the Trump administration’s pending change does not specify which safety net programs should be considered – meaning non-cash benefits like Medicaid and housing vouchers can be.

“Hardworking families should not be forced to go without the support they need because they fear asking for assistance will get them deported,” James said in a release. “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.”

The rule focuses on people who already have legal status in the US. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for public benefits.

James’ lawsuit on New York’s behalf argues DHS is exceeding its authority because Congress did not approve a broader interpretation of what it means to be a public charge. The state along with other plaintiffs will also argue the new rule is “arbitrary and capricious” and that DHS ignored both the harmful consequences of the change and failed to adequately justify it.

The states’ lawsuit, filed Monday morning in the Southern District of New York, does not seek monetary damages from the federal government, but rather asks the court to block the rule, invalidate it and prevent DHS from using it.

CNN has reached out to DHS for comment.

The public charge provision dates to the Immigration Act of 1882. Federal lawmakers at the time wanted to make sure that immigrants would be able to take care of themselves and not end up a public burden. For years, immigration officers only counted cash benefits.

The first Trump administration in 2020 widened the categories of benefit programs that could be considered, including Medicaid, food stamps and housing vouchers. But in 2022 , the Biden administration published a rule that again excluded non-cash benefits from consideration, largely reverting to longstanding practice.

The new rule going into effect this week would rescind the Biden-era rule. It is more expansive than the one from the first Trump administration, in that it does not specify which safety nets should be considered, saying only that DHS “will consider the receipt of any means tested public benefits.”

Also, the new rule would allow immigration officers to consider government benefits applied for on behalf of family members, including children who are citizens, Maddie Geschu, director of policy and advocacy at the Protecting Immigrant Families Coalition, told CNN in July .

The change is expected to disproportionally affect cities with large immigrant populations like New York City, which heavily rely on federal funding. Mamdani is expected to announce Monday several local governments – including Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, California’s Santa Clara County and Washington’s King County – will also file suit in the Southern District of New York, according to a news release.

“The new public charge rule seeks to push immigrant families away from the programs that have kept people fed and healthy for decades. New Yorkers will be afraid to see a doctor or ask for help they are legally entitled to,” Mamdani said in a release. “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.”

The states bringing the lawsuit say they will bear the cost of the policy, specifically citing the risk of losing federal funding as people drop out of programs, while public agencies face higher costs trying to address confusion and fear. If families stop using benefits they are legally entitled to, such as health care, food assistance and school lunches, the states argue those effects could ripple through public health, local economies, schools and public safety.

The legal documents say New York is particularly vulnerable because of its large immigrant population, its extensive public benefits programs, universal school meals programs and the state’s reliance on federal Medicaid and SNAP funding.

“Defendants estimate that nationwide, states will lose an estimated $4.05 billion in annual transfer payments from the federal government for the States’ Medicaid and CHIP programs alone,” the lawsuit states. “Of that nationwide total, Plaintiff States stand to lose approximately $2.2 billion in reduced federal payments.”

Immigration advocates have long warned the policy could be detrimental for hundreds of thousands of immigrant families especially mixed status families with US citizen children who may opt out of programs or skip applying to benefits they are eligible for out of fear it could jeopardize immigration proceedings.

Besides New York and the District of Columbia, plaintiffs involved in the states’ suit are: California, Illinois, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.

CNN’s Tami Luhby contributed to this report.

纽约州和其他 21 个州正在起诉特朗普政府，试图阻止国土安全部一项新规的实施。该新规将赋予移民官员更大的自由裁量权，在确定申请人是否可能依赖政府援助时，可以拒绝发放绿卡、签证或允许其入境美国。

这项将于周五生效的规则变更可能会使许多使用或被认为可能需要食品券、医疗补助或住房券等公共福利的移民更难获得绿卡。

纽约州总检察长莱蒂西亚·詹姆斯和纽约市市长佐兰·马姆达尼（他领导着一个由多个城市组成的联盟，正在提起类似的诉讼）预计将于周一在市政厅举行的新闻发布会上宣布这一法律行动，詹姆斯的办公室表示。

参与诉讼的各州（包括哥伦比亚特区）认为，如果移民，特别是混合身份家庭，因为担心移民后果而退出相关项目，他们将损失数十亿美元的联邦资金。

该诉讼与即将对所谓的“公共负担”规则进行的修改有关，该规则是美国移民法的一项条款，允许政府拒绝向其认定可能依赖政府援助的人发放签证或绿卡。

历史上，移民官员在评估移民申请时只考虑现金福利，例如“贫困家庭临时援助”（TANF）或“社会保障补充保障收入”（SSI）。但特朗普政府即将出台的改革方案并未明确规定应考虑哪些社会保障项目——这意味着非现金福利，例如医疗补助（Medicaid）和住房券，也可能被纳入考量。

詹姆斯在一份声明中表示：“辛勤工作的家庭不应该因为害怕寻求帮助会被驱逐出境而被迫放弃他们需要的支持。这项规定正是利用了这种恐惧，指望这些家庭放弃他们依法享有的食品援助、医疗保险和其他公共福利。”

这项规定主要针对那些已经拥有美国合法身份的人。无证移民没有资格享受公共福利。

詹姆斯代表纽约州提起的诉讼认为，国土安全部此举越权，因为国会并未批准对“公共负担”一词做出更广泛的解释。纽约州和其他原告还将辩称，新规“武断且反复无常”，国土安全部既无视了该变更带来的有害后果，也未能充分证明其合理性。

这些州于周一上午在纽约南区提起的诉讼，并未向联邦政府寻求金钱赔偿，而是要求法院阻止该规则的实施，宣布其无效，并阻止国土安全部使用该规则。

CNN已联系国土安全部寻求置评。

公共负担条款可追溯至1882年的《移民法》。当时的联邦立法者希望确保移民能够自食其力，不会成为公共负担。多年来，移民官员只计算现金福利。

2020年，特朗普第一任期扩大了可纳入考量的福利项目范围，包括医疗补助、食品券和住房券。但2022年，拜登政府出台新规，再次将非现金福利排除在外，基本恢复了长期以来的做法。

本周生效的新规将废除拜登时代的旧规。新规比特朗普第一任期内的规定范围更广，因为它没有具体说明应考虑哪些社会保障措施，只是说国土安全部“将考虑任何需要收入审查的公共福利”。

此外，保护移民家庭联盟的政策和倡导主任麦迪·格舒 (Maddie Geschu) 在 7 月份告诉 CNN，新规将允许移民官员考虑代表家庭成员（包括公民子女）申请的政府福利。

预计这项变更将对纽约市等移民人口众多、严重依赖联邦资金的城市造成不成比例的影响。据新闻稿称，马姆达尼预计将于周一宣布，包括芝加哥、旧金山、西雅图、加州圣克拉拉县和华盛顿州金县在内的几个地方政府也将向纽约南区联邦地区法院提起诉讼。

“新的公共负担规则旨在将移民家庭推离那些几十年来一直保障人们温饱健康的项目。纽约人将不敢去看医生，也不敢寻求他们依法享有的帮助，”马姆达尼在一份声明中表示。“这种恐惧不会止步于联邦政府的目标家庭。那些仍然完全符合福利领取条件的家庭也会感受到寒蝉效应，而所有纽约人都将为此付出代价。”

提起诉讼的各州表示，他们将承担这项政策的成本，并特别指出，随着人们退出相关项目，联邦拨款可能会减少，而公共机构则面临着更高的成本来应对民众的困惑和恐惧。各州认为，如果家庭停止使用他们依法享有的福利，例如医疗保健、食品援助和学校午餐，其影响可能会波及公共卫生、地方经济、学校和公共安全等领域。

法律文件称，纽约州由于其庞大的移民人口、广泛的公共福利计划、普及的学校供餐计划以及该州对联邦医疗补助和补充营养援助计划 (SNAP) 资金的依赖，因此特别容易受到影响。

诉讼书称：“被告估计，仅各州的医疗补助计划（Medicaid）和儿童健康保险计划（CHIP）一项，联邦政府每年拨付给各州的转移支付就将减少约40.5亿美元。在这笔全国总额中，原告各州将因联邦拨款减少而损失约22亿美元。”

移民权益倡导者长期以来一直警告说，这项政策可能会对成千上万的移民家庭造成不利影响，尤其是那些有美国公民子女的混合身份家庭，他们可能会因为担心会危及移民程序而选择退出相关项目或放弃申请他们有资格获得的福利。

除了纽约州和哥伦比亚特区之外，参与该州诉讼的原告还有：加利福尼亚州、伊利诺伊州、科罗拉多州、康涅狄格州、特拉华州、夏威夷州、缅因州、马里兰州、马萨诸塞州、密歇根州、明尼苏达州、新泽西州、新墨西哥州、内华达州、俄勒冈州、宾夕法尼亚州、罗德岛州、佛蒙特州、弗吉尼亚州、华盛顿州和威斯康星州。

CNN的塔米·卢比对本报道亦有贡献。