States sue to stop Trump rule that would make it harder for some immigrants to get green cards
By Gloria Pazmino, Tami Luhby, Maria Santana, CNN
New York (CNN) — 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, would expand the list of possible government aid that immigration officials could cite as part of a reason to disqualify an applicant.
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, announced the legal action during a news conference at City Hall in Manhattan on Monday.
“The rule would allow immigration officers to consider use of critical benefits like Medicaid and SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), and even participation in school meal programs, as part of an applicant’s circumstance,” James said. “That means immigrant New Yorkers may be forced to ask themselves impossible questions: ‘Will getting health insurance hurt my chances of getting a green card? Will accepting food assistance when I fall on hard times be held against me?’”
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.
The rule focuses on people who already have legal status in the US. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for public benefits.
The broadening of the public charge rule is among the latest efforts by the Trump administration to deter immigrants from enrolling in safety net benefits they or their citizen children may be eligible for.
The GOP’s “big beautiful bill,” which Trump signed into law in July 2025, limits legal immigrants’ eligibility for Medicaid and food stamps. Refugees, asylees and victims of domestic abuse and sex trafficking no longer qualify for the programs. Only green card holders and certain other immigrants can enroll.
US citizen children are generally still eligible — though many parents may not opt to apply on their behalf to avoid interacting with the federal government.
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 and the local governments’ lawsuit were filed Monday morning in the Southern District of New York. Both ask the court to declare the rule unlawful and prevent DHS from using it. Neither lawsuit had an assigned judge or scheduled hearing as of early Monday afternoon.
“Cruelty is the point (of the rule change),” James said Monday. “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. And that’s why we are seeking in the state of New York to vacate this rule,” she said.
CNN has reached out to DHS for comment.
Rule change would affect cities with large immigrant populations
The change is expected to disproportionally affect cities with large immigrant populations like New York City, which heavily rely on federal funding.
Plaintiffs in the local governments’ lawsuit include New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, California’s Santa Clara County and Washington state’s King County.
Mamdani said a “climate of fear for immigrants” created by the Trump administration is already driving people away from signing up from government benefits and other assistance they qualify for – even if they’re not subject to the new rule.
“We’re talking about something that we know categorically does not apply to certain sets of New Yorkers, and yet we’re already seeing evidence of those kinds of New Yorkers unenrolling from life-saving benefits,” Mamdani said at the Monday news conference. “To see the federal government pursue rule changes and legislation that will make hungry New Yorkers hungrier, that will make poor New Yorkers poorer, it is a slap in the face to everything that we should be doing in this moment, which is to make it easier for working-class New Yorkers to afford their life here in the city.”
Because of the rule change, some families will likely be confused and in fear of accessing any kind of public benefit, even if they might still qualify to receive it, said Arline Cruz, director of health programs at Make the Road New York, an immigrant rights organization.
“This rule has created a lot of confusion because a lot of our families depend greatly on benefits to access health care, food assistance and other resources that help them maintain the health of their families,” Cruz said.
There is particular concern for mixed status families, according to Cruz, who said her organization already routinely hears from families wondering if they should unenroll their US citizen children from benefits like SNAP – commonly known as food stamps – out of fear their immigration proceedings could be impacted.
What is the ‘public charge’ rule?
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.
“Under @POTUS Trump, DHS is restoring the basic principle that immigrants must be able to support themselves,” the Department of Homeland Security posted to X on July 16. “We are reaffirming the requirement of self-reliance, protecting public resources, and ending policies that encouraged dependency on hard-working American taxpayers.”
About 588,000 applicants are subject to public charge reviews annually, on average, according to DHS.
The states bringing the lawsuit say they would bear the cost of the policy, specifically citing the risk of losing federal funding as people drop out of the safety net 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 states’ lawsuit reads. “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.
The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
