Overview:
New York Attorney General Letitia James, leading 21 states, and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, leading a coalition of cities, filed separate lawsuits Monday challenging a new DHS "public charge" rule taking effect Sept. 18. The rule would let immigration officers deny green cards based on nearly any use of public benefits, including benefits used by U.S. citizen family members. Officials warn the rule will produce a chilling effect across immigrant communities, including Haitian New Yorkers already affected by the loss of TPS and increased immigration enforcement.
NEW YORK — New York Attorney General Letitia James and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani filed separate lawsuits Monday challenging a new federal rule that would allow immigration officers to deny green cards to immigrants who use public benefits, a policy advocates warn could hit Haitian communities already reeling from the loss of temporary protected status.
The Department of Homeland Security rule, set to take effect September 18, dramatically expands what officials may count against a green card applicant under the government’s “public charge” test. Under the new policy, immigration officers could weigh nearly any public benefit, used for any length of time — including benefits used lawfully by a U.S. citizen child.
James is leading a coalition of 21 other states and the District of Columbia in one suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Mamdani filed a separate suit alongside Chicago, San Francisco, Santa Clara County, Seattle, King County and the Public Rights Project.
A century of settled law, reversed
For more than 140 years, federal law has defined a “public charge” narrowly, as someone likely to become primarily dependent on the government for long-term subsistence. A 2022 rule limited public charge determinations to cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense.
The new rule abandons that limit. It does not specify which programs count, stating only that officers will use “good judgment and discretion” to make determinations based on the totality of an applicant’s circumstances. Under that standard, a noncitizen parent’s application could be jeopardized because their U.S. citizen child received state health insurance or ate a free school lunch.
This is the second attempt at such a rule. The Trump administration introduced a similar policy in 2020; James led a successful coalition lawsuit to block it, a ruling upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Biden administration later reversed it.
The current lawsuits argue the rule is arbitrary, exceeds DHS’s statutory authority and departs from the meaning of “public charge” established by Congress.
“My office fought this exact policy once before and won, and we are leading the nation to ensure the Trump administration cannot inflict this harm on families again,” James said in a press release.
What it means for Haitian New Yorkers
New York City Public Advocate Jumaane Williams, who has represented Brooklyn districts with large Haitian populations, said the rule compounds a year of mounting pressure on immigrant communities.
“There is this combination of raids that have happened, of getting rid of TPS and now people trying to weigh through legal arguments they may not understand,” Williams said at the City Hall news conference Monday.
“The purpose of this is cruelty. That’s it: cruelty and fear,” he added. “That is the purpose of all of these immigration decisions that are coming from the Trump White House and absolutely nothing else, particularly to non-white immigrants.”
The numbers behind the chilling effect
The federal government has acknowledged that a previous version of the rule caused benefit disenrollment rates as high as 35 percent among mixed-status families and as high as 60 percent among refugees, according to the attorney general’s office.
DHS itself projects the chilling effect will cost states $4.05 billion annually in Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program funding and $1 billion annually in SNAP funding nationwide.
The coalition argues the consequences extend beyond those who disenroll. When families lose health coverage, they delay care and turn to emergency rooms, straining safety-net hospitals. Schools can lose automatic certification for free and reduced-price meals when SNAP and Medicaid enrollment falls below required thresholds, cutting off meals for eligible students regardless of income or status. Federal Title I education funding, calculated using Medicaid and SNAP enrollment, is also likely to drop.
Mamdani argued the savings are illusory.
“People don’t stop getting sick. People simply will get more sick,” he said, adding that their first contact with a health care provider will then be in an emergency room.
Where to get help
Mamdani urged immigrant New Yorkers with concerns to consult a trusted legal provider before making decisions about benefits, and not to take steps they cannot reverse.
New Yorkers, regardless of immigration status, can call the Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs Immigration Legal Support Hotline at 1-800-354-0365, or dial 311 and say “Immigration Legal,” to reach free and confidential legal assistance in their preferred language.
“No one should have to choose between their family’s wellbeing and their future in this country,” MOIA Commissioner Faiza N. Ali said in a press release.
The coalition is asking the court to declare the rule unlawful and vacate it.
Facts Only
* New York Attorney General Letitia James and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani filed separate lawsuits challenging a new federal rule regarding the "public charge" test on September 18.
* The new rule would allow immigration officers to deny green cards based on nearly any use of public benefits, including those used by U.S. citizen family members.
* Immigration officers could weigh nearly any public benefit used for any length of time, including benefits used lawfully by a U.S. citizen child.
* The lawsuits are led by the Attorney General and a coalition of 21 other states and the District of Columbia.
* Prior federal law defined "public charge" narrowly, limited to cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization.
* Previous rules caused benefit disenrollment rates as high as 35 percent among mixed-status families and up to 60 percent among refugees.
* DHS projects the chilling effect would cost states $4.05 billion annually in Medicaid/CHIP funding and $1 billion annually in SNAP funding nationwide.
* The coalition argues the rule is arbitrary, exceeds DHS authority, and departs from Congressional meaning of "public charge."
* Immigrant New Yorkers were urged to consult legal providers regarding benefit decisions.
Executive Summary
New York Attorney General Letitia James and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani filed separate lawsuits challenging a new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rule concerning the "public charge" test, which will take effect on September 18. This rule would allow immigration officers to deny green cards based on nearly any use of public benefits, including those used by U.S. citizen family members. The rule expands the scope of what officials can weigh against an applicant under the "public charge" standard, which historically was narrowly defined.
The lawsuits argue that the new rule is arbitrary, exceeds DHS statutory authority, and departs from the meaning of "public charge" established by Congress. This challenge comes amid existing pressures on immigrant communities, including Haitian New Yorkers who have faced difficulties with Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and increased enforcement. Furthermore, the coalition notes that previous versions of similar rules resulted in significant benefit disenrollment rates, leading to concerns about the rule's downstream effects on public safety nets like Medicaid and SNAP funding. The challenges emphasize that the consequences extend beyond disenrollment, potentially straining healthcare and education resources for affected families.
Full Take
The conflict centers on the tension between administrative discretion in immigration enforcement and established legal definitions of public assistance, revealing a deep structural disagreement over who determines societal support obligations. The narrative shifts from a narrow, objective definition of dependency (a century of settled law) to a highly subjective standard based on "good judgment and discretion," effectively shifting the burden of risk onto vulnerable populations. This process demonstrates how procedural changes in regulatory language can have profound, tangible consequences that accrue through systemic strain on public resources—Medicaid, SNAP, and education funding—rather than just individual denials.
The framing deployed against the rule centers on fear and the immediate threat to community stability (citing Haitian communities already affected by TPS loss), which then pivots into a broader argument about arbitrary governmental action affecting fundamental rights and security. The pattern suggests that when specific, verifiable harm is tied to abstract policy shifts, the focus moves toward moral imperatives rather than purely legal mechanics. The claim that the previous administration’s actions were reversible establishes a historical precedent for resistance against shifting regulatory power, suggesting that challenging executive agency is a recurring feature in immigration policy debates.
The real implication lies in the delegation of consequential judgment: allowing immigration officers to weigh unrelated benefits creates an opaque mechanism where outcomes are determined by non-specified "good judgment," thereby amplifying existing socioeconomic vulnerabilities rather than mitigating them. The cost calculations for state and federal budgets serve as a concrete tether to this abstract legal argument, transforming a constitutional challenge into an immediate fiscal concern.
Bridge Questions: If the definition of "public charge" were strictly limited to documented dependency, what specific legislative or judicial mechanism could enforce that limit against broad administrative discretion? How can legal challenges effectively compel agencies to reverse discretionary policy without establishing new, enforceable metrics for "good judgment"? What are the long-term implications if health and educational safety nets become contingent upon immigration status markers?