New York City and five other local governments sued the Trump administration in federal court in Manhattan on Sept. 14 to block a new immigration rule that could jeopardize green card applications and push families away from services they’re legally allowed to use.
Who Holds the Levers
The lawsuit names the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the leaders of both agencies as defendants. The coalition behind the case includes New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, Santa Clara County, California, Seattle and King County, Washington. Their complaint says the rule, set to take effect Sept. 18, gives immigration officers greater freedom to weigh whether applicants have used public benefits tied to income.
That’s the machinery at work. A federal rule, written from above, reaches down into the daily lives of people trying to stay housed, fed and medically treated, then turns those basic needs into evidence against them. The cities and counties say the policy unlawfully rewrites immigration law, strains local governments, hospitals and schools, and could inflict broader economic damage.
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani said at a Sept. 14 news conference, "Denying people services does not erase their need; it compounds it, generating a greater cost to our system that will be placed on the backs of working people for years to come." He added, "Nothing about this rule will reduce waste or keep Americans safer or improve New Yorkers' lives. It is simply a vehicle for confusion and a vehicle for cruelty."
Who Pays the Price
The rule largely targets people seeking to enter the country legally or secure permanent status, including many already living legally in the United States. The complaint says families are being left to guess which benefits could be used against them, and the cities say that uncertainty is already prompting people, including some not covered by the rule, to avoid health care and other assistance for which they qualify rather than risk their future in the United States.
Using Medicaid or food assistance would not automatically lead to a denial, but it could become one strike against someone seeking a green card or certain visas, along with their age, health, job and finances. Federal guidance names everything from food and housing assistance to tax credits and college financial aid. The local governments say the consequences could extend well beyond the immigrants whose applications are reviewed.
In Chicago, fewer residents with Medicaid could mean less federal reimbursement for ambulance services provided by the city’s fire department, leaving the city to shoulder more of the cost. In New York, the public hospital system estimates that more than 16,000 patients could lose Medicaid coverage under one projected scenario, costing the system tens of millions of dollars in its first year as more uninsured patients seek care.
Mamdani said, "People don't stop getting sick. People simply will get more sick, and then the first time that they will interact with a health care provider will be at the emergency room."
New York City health researchers modeled how the policy could affect immigrants younger than 65 and U.S.-citizen children in mixed-status households. Over five years, they projected that access to primary care could fall by as much as 9.9% and premature deaths could rise by as much as 10.6%.
What They Call 'Public Charge'
DHS estimated in its economic analysis that families leaving or avoiding assistance programs could reduce federal and state benefit payments by about $13 billion a year. The department acknowledged that hospitals, grocery stores, farmers and landlords could also feel the loss.
The fight centers on the meaning of "public charge," a term in federal immigration law for someone considered likely to become dependent on the government. The provision dates to the Immigration Act of 1882, but for decades officials generally focused on cash assistance for income and government-funded, long-term institutional care when deciding who met that definition.
President Donald Trump broadened the test during his first term to include several other forms of assistance, including food benefits, certain Medicaid coverage and housing subsidies. The policy prompted lawsuits and widespread confusion before taking effect in 2020. The Biden administration reversed the expansion in 2022, returning to a narrower standard that excluded most noncash benefits.
Now, the second Trump administration is broadening the test again to include "any means-tested public benefits." DHS said the Biden-era standard was "unduly restrictive" and hampered officers' ability to accurately decide who was likely to become a public charge. The cities and counties argue the administration has instead erased clear limits and given individual officers too much power, opening the door to unpredictable or discriminatory decisions.
Advocacy groups praised the legal challenge. Adriana Cadena, executive director of the Protecting Immigrant Families Coalition, wrote in a statement, "This dangerous regulation is a direct assault on immigrant families, and a threat to our country's health and economic security, and we hope the court will act quickly to strike it down."
New York Attorney General Letitia James led a separate group of 21 states and the District of Columbia in filing another challenge to the rule on Sept. 14. That coalition also argues the rule exceeds DHS's authority, departs from the meaning established by Congress and was adopted without adequate justification. James said the policy would force immigrant families across the country to face "impossible questions." She asked, "Will getting health insurance hurt my chances of getting a green card? Will accepting food assistance when I fall on hard times be held against me? Will my children be able to eat at lunchtime in the cafeteria in a mixed-status family?" and added, "No family should have to grapple with these questions."