A coalition of 22 states and the District of Columbia filed lawsuits Monday challenging new federal immigration guidelines that expand the definition of “public charge.” The legal challenges target the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, arguing the policy will force local governments to absorb significant financial burdens while harming public health outcomes.
The Trump administration’s revised guidance takes effect this Friday. It grants immigration officers broader discretion to consider an applicant’s use of non-cash benefits—such as Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), housing assistance, and food stamps—as evidence that the individual may become dependent on government aid. Under federal law, such dependency renders an applicant inadmissible for permanent residency.
This policy reverses a 2022 rule established under the Biden administration, which restricted immigration officials from considering non-cash benefits in public charge determinations. The current administration stated it rescinded the previous guidance to protect taxpayer dollars and promote immigrant self-sufficiency.
Financial Impact on State Budgets
The plaintiffs argue that the new rules contain ambiguities that will shift costs from the federal government to state and local budgets. According to Department of Homeland Security estimates, the policy change could result in a nationwide loss of $4.05 billion annually in federal transfer payments for Medicaid and CHIP programs.
The coalition of states contends they stand to lose approximately $2.2 billion of that total in reduced federal payments. Additionally, the lawsuits cite an estimated $1 billion nationwide loss in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funding due to anticipated disenrollments. The plaintiff states project a combined loss of $575 million in federal SNAP payments.
Officials warn that mixed-status households will likely forgo essential benefits to avoid jeopardizing immigration applications. This behavior, they argue, leaves U.S. citizen dependents without necessary care and forces states to fund gaps in healthcare and nutrition assistance from their own reserves.
Public Health Concerns
A separate lawsuit was filed by a coalition of cities and counties, including New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, Santa Clara County, California, and King County, Washington. This group argues that the policy will lead to widespread disenrollment from preventative healthcare and nutritional programs.
The city and county coalition estimates that 1.3 million people, including 600,000 children, could lose access to care and coverage. New York City officials project a reduction of 6,000 annual primary care visits as a result of the policy.
In Washington state, data shows that 19 percent of Seattle residents and 26 percent of King County residents rely on free or low-cost education programs. The plaintiffs contend that public health will suffer significantly as families withdraw from these safety nets.
Legal Challenges
Both lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The states argue that the federal government’s new interpretation of “public charge” violates existing statutory frameworks and imposes unfunded mandates on local jurisdictions.
New York City Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani criticized the timing and scope of the rule. “The new public charge rule seeks to push immigrant families away from the programs that have kept people fed and healthy for decades,” Mamdani said.
The administration maintains that the policy aligns with congressional intent to ensure immigrants do not become a public burden. The legal battles are expected to test the boundaries of federal immigration authority versus state interests in maintaining social safety nets.