Twenty States Sue Trump Administration Over Public Charge Visa Rule

Clear Facts

• More than 20 states led by New York Attorney General Letitia James filed suit against a Department of Homeland Security rule that expands immigration officials’ discretion in denying visas and green cards based on potential public charge determinations.
• The rule, effective Friday, allows officers to consider any means-tested public benefits when evaluating whether applicants are likely to become dependent on government assistance.
• Critics argue the regulation gives officers broad, undefined discretion that replaces the previous well-defined standard with vague judgment calls.

More than twenty states are challenging a new Department of Homeland Security rule in court. The regulation would expand the criteria immigration officers use when deciding whether applicants for visas or green cards are likely to become a public charge.

The rule takes effect Friday and removes the previous requirement that applicants must be primarily dependent on specific government programs. Instead, officers may now consider any receipt of means-tested benefits as part of their evaluation.

New York State Attorney General Letitia James led the coalition of twenty-one states and Washington, D.C. in filing the lawsuit.

“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 statement. “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.”

James also described the rule as having a chilling effect on immigrant communities. “Cruelty is the point,” she said at a press conference. “Having a chilling effect on immigrants is the point. Letting individuals know that they are not welcome here is the point. Immigration animus is the point. The fact that you’re going to deny individuals who are sick and hungry and homeless benefits just is beyond the pale.”

The states argue the rule exceeds the authority granted by Congress and is arbitrary in nature. They claim it ignores the harmful consequences that may follow from the policy change.

David Bier, Director of Immigration Studies at the Cato Institute, told Fox News Digital that the regulation lacks the clear standards found in prior rules. “The rule as it was before this new regulation was you had to be primarily dependent on certain government benefit programs,” Bier said. “This rule removes that definition and doesn’t replace it with anything.”

Bier also noted that the rule could affect families of U.S. citizens seeking legal status. “The primary population that’s going to be affected by this public charge rule are spouses of U.S. citizens and their kids who are trying to receive green cards so they can live with their American spouse or parent here in the United States,” he said.

The administration maintains the rule aligns with the original intent of the public charge statute dating back to the Immigration Act of 1882. The provision was designed to ensure immigrants can support themselves rather than rely on public assistance.

Let us know what you think, please share your thoughts in the comments below.