On September 14, 2026, Illinois joined 21 other states and the District of Columbia in filing a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York aiming to block a new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rule that expands immigration officials’ authority to deny green cards, visas, or entry based on applicants’ potential reliance on public benefits.
Legal challenge targets broader ‘public charge’ criteria
The lawsuit contends that the DHS rule, set to take effect the Friday following its filing, significantly increases the difficulty for immigrants seeking green cards by permitting denial if applicants have used or might need government aid programs such as Medicaid, housing vouchers, or
food assistance. Plaintiffs warn this expanded definition of “public charge” lacks clear program specifications and includes benefits applied for family members, including U.S. citizen children.
According to the legal filing, the rule risks causing billions of dollars in federal funding losses due to immigrant families potentially disenrolling from public programs over fear of immigration repercussions. Nationwide, the loss in federal Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) payments alone is estimated at $4.05 billion per year, with plaintiff states anticipating around $2.2 billion annually in reduced funding.
Historical context and policy reversals
The public charge provision traces back to the Immigration Act of 1882, originally
designed to prevent immigrants likely to become public burdens from entering the U.S. Historically, immigration officials considered only cash benefits such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or Supplemental Security Income in immigration decisions.
The Trump administration’s 2020 rule expanded this to include non-cash benefits like Medicaid, food stamps, and housing vouchers. The Biden administration reversed this policy in 2022 by excluding non-cash benefits again. The current DHS rule reinstates and broadens the Trump-era approach by not specifying any particular means-tested programs and including benefits used by family members in eligibility considerations.
Officials highlight social impacts and opposition
New York State Attorney General Letitia James criticized
the rule for exploiting immigrant families’ fears, stating, “Hardworking families should not be forced to go without the support they need because they fear asking for assistance will get them deported.” She added the rule relies on families forfeiting benefits they are legally entitled to.
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, leading a coalition of cities planning similar lawsuits, said the rule drives immigrant families away from long-standing aid programs, causing widespread fear that extends beyond targeted groups. He said, “That fear will not stop at the families that the federal government is targeting. Families who remain fully eligible for
benefits will feel a chilling effect, and all New Yorkers will pay for it.”
Impacts on immigrant families and public systems
The expanded rule poses challenges for immigrants applying for green cards or visas who utilize public assistance or are expected to need it. Mixed-status families may withdraw from programs like Medicaid, food stamps, or housing subsidies to avoid jeopardizing immigration status, disrupting access to food, healthcare, and housing.
States involved expect increased costs tied to managing confusion and fear within immigrant communities. These impacts extend into public health systems, local economies, educational programs, and public safety.
Wider geographic scope and allied lawsuits
Besides Illinois and New York, plaintiff states include California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, along with the District of Columbia.
Local governments in cities with large immigrant populations — including Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, Santa Clara County in California, and King County in Washington — announced plans to file related lawsuits in the Southern District of New York, reinforcing the geographic breadth of opposition to the DHS rule.
