Illinois, joined by 21 other states and the District of Columbia, filed a lawsuit on September 14, 2026, seeking to block a Trump administration Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rule that would expand criteria for denying green cards, visas, or U.S. entry based on potential reliance on government aid. The rule was scheduled to take effect the Friday following the filing date, likely September 18, 2026.
Expanded Public Charge Criteria and Rule Changes
The DHS rule broadens the definition of ‘public charge’ to include any means-tested public benefits such as Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) food stamps, and housing vouchers. Unlike prior policy, the rule does
not limit considerations to cash benefits alone. This reverses a 2022 Biden administration regulation that excluded non-cash benefits from public charge determinations. It goes beyond the 2020 Trump administration rule by not specifying which public safety net programs immigration officers should consider, instead allowing review of benefits received or applied for by family members, including U.S. citizen children.
Legal Arguments Against the DHS Rule
The lawsuit, filed in the Southern District of New York, contends that DHS exceeded its legal authority by expanding the public charge criteria without congressional approval. The plaintiffs describe the new rule as arbitrary and capricious, arguing it fails to properly address
harmful effects and lacks adequate justification. They request a court order to block and invalidate the rule, preventing DHS from enforcing it, without seeking monetary damages.
Impact on Immigrants and Public Benefit Programs
The expanded public charge rule primarily targets immigrants who already hold legal status in the United States. It is expected to complicate green card eligibility for those using or likely to need means-tested public benefits. Immigration advocates warn that mixed-status families may disenroll from essential programs like Medicaid and food assistance due to fear of jeopardizing immigration status, resulting in a chilling effect affecting even those fully eligible. Local governments may face higher administrative
costs responding to confusion and decreased benefit participation.
Estimated Financial Consequences for States
The legal filing estimates potential federal funding losses of $4.05 billion annually nationwide for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) due to reduced participation. Plaintiff states alone could lose approximately $2.2 billion each year in federal payments. Such dis-enrollment could also impact public health, education, local economies, and public safety.
Officials and Coalitions Involved in the Lawsuit
New York State Attorney General Letitia James described the rule as exploiting immigrant families’ fears to forfeit benefits they are legally entitled to. She stated, “Hardworking families should not be forced to go without the support they need because they
fear asking for assistance will get them deported.” New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, leading a coalition of cities including Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, Santa Clara County (California), and King County (Washington), said, “The new public charge rule seeks to push immigrant families away from the programs that have kept people fed and healthy for decades.”
Historical Context of the Public Charge Rule
The public charge provision originates from the Immigration Act of 1882, which aimed to prevent immigrants becoming public burdens. For decades, immigration officials counted only cash benefits in determinations. The Trump administration altered this in 2020 by expanding categories to include non-cash benefits, but
the Biden administration’s 2022 rule largely reverted to excluding non-cash aid. The current rule would again broaden the scope for immigration officers to include any means-tested public benefits in their assessments.
