20 States Sue to Block Trump's Expanded Public Charge Immigration Rule

A coalition of more than 20 states and Washington, D.C., filed suit this week against the Department of Homeland Security over a new public charge rule set to take effect Friday. The rule expands the discretion immigration officers have when deciding whether to deny visas or green cards to applicants deemed likely to depend on government assistance.

New York State Attorney General Letitia James led the legal challenge, joined by 21 other states. Separately, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani filed a lawsuit on behalf of a coalition of cities. The states argue that the rule violates administrative law because it lacks clear standards and exceeds the agency's authority. Under the new guidance, immigration officials can now consider an applicant's use of Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and school meal programs when determining whether someone might become dependent on government aid. The previous rule, established under the Biden administration in 2022, had narrowed the definition of public charge to only cash assistance programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Supplemental Security Income, along with government-funded long-term institutionalization.

James said the rule weaponizes fear. "Hardworking families should not be forced to go without the support they need because they fear asking for assistance will get them deported," she stated. At a press conference, she was more direct: "Cruelty is the point. Having a chilling effect on immigrants is the point." The states contend that immigrants will avoid accessing benefits they are legally entitled to receive, creating a chilling effect that ripples through immigrant communities. The states also argue they stand to lose billions in federal funding if immigrants withdraw from public assistance programs out of fear that such use will trigger deportation.

The new rule differs markedly from even the first Trump administration's approach. That earlier version specified which safety net programs could be considered; this one simply states that DHS "will consider the receipt of any means tested public benefits" without defining which ones or how they factor into the decision. David Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, told Fox News Digital that this vagueness creates what amounts to unchecked officer discretion. "The rule as it was before this new regulation was you had to be primarily dependent on certain government benefit programs. This rule removes that definition and doesn't replace it with anything," he said. "It's essentially the Wild West. No one knows what's going on, no one knows what the law is now."

Bier warned that the rule does not actually prohibit immigrants from receiving welfare; rather, it allows officers to make probabilistic judgments about whether someone will become dependent in the future. This creates a trap for self-sufficient applicants. "Whether someone is currently using benefits or not doesn't matter under this evaluation," he explained. "It's this probabilistic determination of the future that they're using in order to deny people legal status and legal permanent resident status in the United States. That's a much more difficult assessment to make. That's going to result in arbitrary denials."

The human cost falls hardest on American families. Bier noted that the primary population affected will be spouses of U.S. citizens and their children seeking green cards. "That's the overwhelming majority of the people who are going to be affected by the rule. It's going to result in many of those immigrant families being separated from their American spouse or parent," he said. Last month, the administration directed U.S. embassies and consulates worldwide to postpone immigrant visa interviews while consular officers received training on the new public charge guidance, temporarily halting applications that had reached the interview stage.

The public charge doctrine traces back to the Immigration Act of 1882, when Congress sought to ensure immigrants could support themselves. For decades, it remained narrowly applied. The first Trump administration broadened it to include Medicaid, food stamps, and housing vouchers. The Biden administration reversed course in 2022. Now, the Trump administration has gone further, removing the specificity that even its own earlier rule contained. The states and cities are asking courts to declare the rule unlawful and block its enforcement. How courts will treat the challenge remains uncertain, but the vagueness itself may be the rule's vulnerability. "It is very unusual regulation," Bier said. "I think from that standpoint the states have a good argument that we had a well defined public charge rule and the administration didn't replace it with some other well defined rule, it replaced it with nothing."