The lawsuit, filed on Sept. 14 in Manhattan federal court, asks a judge to throw out the administration’s new “public charge” rule and accompanying immigration guidance and block the federal government from enforcing them. The policy is scheduled to take effect Friday, Sept. 18.
Chicago, San Francisco, Santa Clara County, Seattle and the city of Washington, DC, joined New York City in the case. New York Attorney General Letitia James is separately leading another legal challenge to the rule, according to City Hall.
Federal immigration law allows the government to find certain immigrants inadmissible if officials determine they are likely at some point to become a “public charge.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) says the public-charge test applies to people seeking to adjust their status to become lawful permanent residents unless they fall into an exempt immigration category. Refugees, asylees and certain other humanitarian categories are among those exempt.
What new green card rules mean for public benefits
Under the new guidance, immigration officers can consider an applicant’s receipt of means-tested public benefits, including cash assistance for income maintenance, housing assistance, food stamps, college financial aid and other similar benefits.
For benefits received before Sept. 18, USCIS says officers will consider only public cash assistance for income maintenance and long-term institutionalization at government expense. For means-tested benefits received on or after Sept. 18, the agency says officers will consider “any and all” such benefits as part of a case-by-case review of an applicant’s circumstances.
The Trump administration says the change better reflects Congress’ intent that immigrants in the United States be self-sufficient and not dependent on taxpayer-funded government benefits.
New York City and the other plaintiffs, however, argue the administration has gone beyond what Congress authorized.
Their 108-page complaint says the term “public charge” has historically applied to people expected to become primarily dependent on government assistance for basic subsistence, such as cash income assistance or long-term institutional care at government expense.
The cities contend the new rule abandons that standard by allowing officials to consider any means-tested benefit without clear limits. The complaint specifically argues that even anticipated use of supplemental programs such as the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) could potentially count against an applicant.
“The new public charge rule seeks to push immigrant families away from the programs that have kept people fed and healthy for decades,” Mamdani said in a statement. “New Yorkers will be afraid to see a doctor or ask for help they are legally entitled to.”
Mamdani said the effects could extend beyond people directly subject to the rule, arguing that other immigrant families may avoid benefits out of fear of immigration consequences.
“Families who remain fully eligible for benefits will feel a chilling effect, and all New Yorkers will pay for it,” he said.
The complaint notes that more than 3.1 million New York City residents — approximately 38% of the population — are foreign-born. More than 250,000 city children live in households whose members have different immigration statuses, and half of the city’s children have at least one immigrant parent, according to the filing.
The coalition brings three claims under the federal Administrative Procedure Act. It argues that the rule and guidance are contrary to law and exceed the administration’s authority; that they are arbitrary and capricious; and that, to the extent the USCIS guidance imposed new substantive requirements, the government failed to follow required notice-and-comment procedures.
Corporation Counsel Steve Banks said the administration was unlawfully broadening the definition of public charge.
“No immigrant New Yorker should have to choose between their immigration status and benefits for which they are legally eligible,” Banks said.
The cities are asking the court to vacate the rule and USCIS guidance and prevent the administration from implementing them.
This is a developing story, check back for updates.