States Sue to Stop Trump Rule Linking Public Benefits to Green Cards

By Mintesinot Nigussie  |  September 18, 2026

New York Attorney General Letitia James has led a coalition of 21 states and the District of Columbia in suing the Trump administration over a new immigration rule that would allow federal officials to consider immigrants’ use of public benefits when deciding whether to approve green card applications.

The lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, challenges a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rule scheduled to take effect on September 18. A separate lawsuit has also been filed by a coalition of cities led by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

The new rule expands the circumstances under which immigration officers can determine that a noncitizen is likely to become a “public charge” and therefore deny an application for lawful permanent residence.

Under the previous federal rule issued in 2022, public charge determinations were generally limited to certain cash assistance for income maintenance and long-term institutional care at government expense. The new policy would allow officers to consider a much wider range of public benefits, regardless of how long they were used.

The rule could also take into account benefits received by an applicant’s family members, including US citizens. For example, the coalition said a noncitizen parent’s green card application could potentially be affected if their US citizen child receives state health insurance or participates in a school free-lunch programme.

The states argue that the rule provides immigration officers with broad discretion without establishing a clear limit on which benefits or how much use could affect an application. They say this uncertainty could discourage immigrant families from accessing programmes for which they are legally eligible.

According to the lawsuit, the federal government has acknowledged that similar policies in the past led to significant reductions in participation in public benefit programmes. The administration estimates that the new rule could reduce federal funding for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Programme by about 4.05 billion US dollars annually, and reduce Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programme funding by about 1 billion US dollars.

The coalition argues that the effects could extend beyond immigrant households. Lower participation in Medicaid and SNAP could increase pressure on emergency departments and community health centres as people delay medical treatment, while schools could face reduced access to federal education and school-meal funding tied to participation in benefit programmes.

State and local governments could also face additional costs from implementing the policy, including public communications, staff training and changes to information-technology systems, according to the lawsuit.

James and the other plaintiffs argue that DHS exceeded its statutory authority and violated the Administrative Procedure Act by adopting a rule that departs from the longstanding interpretation of the public charge provision.

James previously led a legal challenge against a similar Trump administration policy introduced in 2020. That effort resulted in the policy being blocked, with the decision later upheld by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The states are asking the federal court to declare the 2026 rule unlawful and set it aside before it can take effect.

The coalition includes the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin, as well as the District of Columbia and the governor of Pennsylvania.

Source: FSX Business News