New York Attorney General Letitia James on September 14, 2026, led 21 other states, the District of Columbia and Pennsylvania’s governor in suing to block the Department of Homeland Security’s new “public charge” rule. The coalition asked the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to declare the rule unlawful and vacate it before its scheduled September 18 effective date.
The rule would allow immigration officers to consider nearly any public benefit, used for any length of time, when deciding whether to deny a green card, according to the attorney general’s office. It could also count benefits lawfully used by an applicant’s relatives, including U.S. citizens, such as state-provided health insurance for a child or participation in a school free-lunch program.
For more than 140 years, the federal government has defined a public charge as a person likely to become primarily dependent on the government for long-term subsistence, the attorney general’s office said. A 2022 federal rule limited relevant benefits to cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense. The coalition argues that the 2026 rule departs from that longstanding meaning and leaves no clear limit on which benefits, or how much use, officers may consider.
The lawsuit alleges that the rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act because it is arbitrary and capricious, exceeds DHS’s statutory authority and conflicts with the public charge provision established by Congress. James previously led a challenge to a similar Trump administration rule introduced in 2020; the decision blocking that measure was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The coalition asserts that fear and confusion could cause eligible immigrant families, including U.S. citizen children, to leave public-benefit programs. According to figures cited in the announcement, the federal government found that an earlier version of the policy was associated with disenrollment rates as high as 35 percent among mixed-status families and 60 percent among refugees. DHS projects that the new rule’s “chilling effect” will cost states $4.05 billion annually in Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program funding and $1 billion annually in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program funding nationwide.
The states contend that lower enrollment could increase pressure on emergency rooms and safety-net providers, reduce schools’ automatic certification for free and reduced-price meals, and lower Title I education funding tied to Medicaid and SNAP participation. They also say state and local governments would incur costs for public communications, staff training and information-technology changes. A separate lawsuit filed alongside the states’ case is led by New York City and includes Chicago, San Francisco, Santa Clara County, Seattle and King County.