20 states sue to block Trump admin rule that would make it harder for immigrants to obtain visas, green cards

States and Cities File Lawsuits Over Trump‑era “Public Charge” Rule

WASHINGTON, D.C. – On Friday, a new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rule that expands the range of benefits immigrants may be penalized for using is set to take effect. The rule, which gives immigration officers broad discretion to consider any means‑tested public assistance when deciding whether an applicant is a “public charge,” has prompted a coalition of 21 states, Washington, D.C., and a separate group of cities to file federal suits against the Trump administration.

Who is suing?

The states’ lawsuit was led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, who joined 20 other states and the federal district. The cities’ suit was spearheaded by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who represents a coalition that includes several major urban centers.

What is the rule?

The new rule replaces the Biden administration’s 2022 guidance, which had limited the public‑charge assessment to cash assistance programs such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Under the Trump‑era rule, DHS can now consider any means‑tested benefit—including Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), school‑meal programs, and housing vouchers—when determining an applicant’s likelihood of future dependence on government aid.

The rule does not specify a fixed list of benefits; instead it authorizes officers to “consider the receipt of any means‑tested public benefits.” That shift, critics argue, effectively opens the door for arbitrary decisions.

When and where does it apply?

The rule will take effect on Friday and applies to immigration applications for admission to the United States and for adjustment of status to lawful permanent residence. It will affect both prospective green‑card holders and those seeking visas to enter the country.

Why are the states and cities suing?

The lawsuits claim that the new rule exceeds DHS’s statutory authority. James said the 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.” She added that the rule would “cause more fear of interacting with the government for people who are part of an immigrant family.”

The states also warn that a broader interpretation of public charge could drive immigrants to withdraw from programs for fear of jeopardizing their status, thereby depriving the federal government of billions in revenue. The lawsuit alleges that such an outcome would be “arbitrary” and that Congress did not approve an expansion of the public‑charge definition.

In a separate but related case, cities argue that the rule “creates a chilling effect on immigrants, letting individuals know that they are not welcome here,” and that the policy “is beyond the pale” for denying benefits to sick, hungry, or homeless people.

What do experts say?

David Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, called the rule “very unusual.” He said that unlike the earlier Trump rule, the current regulation “doesn’t replace it with a well‑defined rule; it replaced it with nothing. There’s just discretion to the officers.” Bier warned that the lack of a clear definition “could lead to arbitrary denials,” adding that the rule’s focus on a probabilistic assessment of future benefits “makes it difficult to avoid denying self‑sufficient applicants.”

The rule’s expansion follows a history of oscillations in U.S. immigration policy. The original public‑charge provision was enacted in 1882 to ensure new arrivals could support themselves. The first Trump administration broadened the scope to include Medicaid and food stamps; the Biden administration rolled back that expansion in 2022. The current rule represents another swing back toward a broader definition.

How is DHS responding?

DHS has not yet issued a formal comment on the lawsuits. In the meantime, the administration paused immigrant visa interviews worldwide while consular officers received additional training on the revised public‑charge guidance. The pause has already stalled visa applications that had reached the interview stage.

What are the implications for applicants?

The rule is expected to most heavily impact family‑based green‑card applicants, particularly spouses of U.S. citizens and parents of U.S. children. According to Bier, the new guidance “will result in many of those immigrant families being separated from their American spouse or parent.” The broader discretion granted to officers raises concerns that applicants who rely on legitimate public benefits may be unfairly labeled as future public charges.

Legal and policy context

The lawsuits are the latest in a string of legal challenges to Trump’s broader immigration crackdown, which has extended beyond border enforcement to legal immigration pathways. The administration has also imposed higher visa fees and new limits on the stays of foreign students and journalists. Those actions have prompted court battles over alleged violations of the First Amendment and due process protections.

Next steps

The federal courts will decide whether the DHS rule violates the Constitution or exceeds the agency’s statutory authority. While the lawsuits are pending, the rule will go into effect on Friday, potentially reshaping how immigration officials evaluate the public‑charge risk of new and existing applicants.

The states’ and cities’ legal actions underscore a growing tension between federal immigration policy and the interests of state and local governments that depend on federal funding tied to program participation. Whether the courts will strike down the rule or uphold the broader discretion remains to be seen, but the outcome will have lasting implications for families seeking to build lives in the United States.