Trump Admin Sued Over Rule That Could Deny Green Cards to Benefit Users
The lawsuit, filed in Manhattan, accuses the Trump administration “of unlawfully expanding the definition of the ‘public charge’ rule.”
The District of Columbia and 21 states sued the Trump administration over a policy that would make it harder for immigrants to get a green card if they need public benefits.
The Plaintiffs claim:
Ultimately, under Defendants’ Final Rule, and in accordance with the Guidance, immigration officers have unprecedented, sweeping new discretion to deny admission, and to block pathways to lawful permanent residency, based on participation in public programs—programs for which Congress or the states elected to extend eligibility to noncitizens or their citizen family members. Non-citizens will be faced with the impossible task of weighing their or their family members’ participation in supplemental state and federal programs that improve health, economic mobility, and general well-being, against the negative impacts that such participation will have on their ability to obtain lawful permanent resident status (also known as “green cards”).
President Donald Trump invoked the Immigration Act of 1882 in July:
What’s more, it could also have a “chilling effect” on hundreds of thousands of immigrant families, prompting them to disenroll from or not to apply for safety net programs that they – and particularly their US citizen children – are eligible to receive for fear of hurting their chances to be approved.
The final rule, published Monday, allows immigration officers to take into account a wider array of public assistance programs when determining whether green card applicants will likely become “public charges,” which is one factor in the evaluation. It rescinds a 2022 Biden-era rule that excluded non-cash benefits from consideration.
The lawsuit, filed in Manhattan, accuses the Trump administration “of unlawfully expanding the definition of the ‘public charge’ rule.”
“Congress never intended for the public charge ground to be weaponized against immigrants and their family members who merely use supplemental or temporary amounts of public assistance to which they are lawfully entitled,” argued the plaintiffs.
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and leaders of other Democrat-run cities filed a separate lawsuit with the same argument:
The filing argues that considering any means-tested or income-based benefit eligibility was discriminatory and subjective.
“New Yorkers will be afraid to see a doctor or ask for help they are legally entitled to,” Hizzoner said. “That fear will not stop at the families that the federal government is targeting. Families who remain fully eligible for benefits will feel a chilling effect, and all New Yorkers will pay for it.”
“This is the ideological contortion required by left-wing leaders to justify their defrauding of the American taxpayer at the hands of illegal criminals,” said a DHS representative.
Can we talk about the fact that Democrats just sprinted into court to stop President Trump from enforcing a 144-year-old law that says you don’t get to live here if you’re going to live off American taxpayers?
They’re literally suing to keep the welfare tap open for people who… https://t.co/cEYQLmqw9N
— Kate (@kate_p45) September 14, 2026
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Huh- Is the dem message going into mid terms REALLY going to be that Trump is evil because he won’t let third world trash come in and free load?
Cuz I’d like it to be that message. Very loud.
How many more years do we have to remain so stupid? Once qualified for benefits, they stay on them for decades. This is not America. Well maybe it is – too many real Americans getting ripped off by non-Americans.
All those welfare queens are laughing at the productive and those who play by the rules. “Who’s the slave NOW, muthaf***ahz?”
Anyone that would object to the arbitrary and capricious rule of leftists is a fascist, says The Party.
“The filing argues that considering any means-tested or income-based benefit eligibility was discriminatory and subjective.”
That’s the opposite of subjective. Means and income requirements are objective.
Moreover, it is highly discriminatory. The interpretation intends to look at who is being supported by taxpayers, and looks disfavorably on those that are supported by the taxpayers.
“Discriminatory” to the left means “things we don’t like” to such an extent that it has lost its original meaning.
“Discriminatory” to the left means “things we don’t like” to such an extent that it has lost its original meaning.
Either choices we don’t like, or reasons we don’t like, or both. You wanna discriminate in how they’re treated, how about pass a law, or better an amendment.
“You can’t admit them because they’ll vote R? Must admit them because they’ll vote D? Or no considering how they’ll vote in letting them in?”
I’m reminded of the LBJ quote at Civil Rights Act vote, PresBiden weakly echoed with the ACA: “That’ll keep voting Democrat for fifty years.”
I, myself, am OK with govt patronage and constituency service. I do want to consider how any of that impacts me, and think I ought to have a vote. Kinda want it to be visible, too. Audit the buy-offs! Because I, too can be bought. Let the bidding commence.
The vile, stupid and evil Dhimmi-crats are 100% invested in perpetuating and expanding the nation’s parasitic, welfare/entitlement class, and have been since LBJ vastly expanded the federal welfare state.
More dependents — especially illegal aliens — on the public dole means more Dhimmi-crat votes, more fraudulently procured dollars flowing to and benefiting Dhimmi-crat constituencies and apparatuses, and more Dhimmi-crat apparatchiks/bureaucrats permanently ensconced in the innumerable and ever-expanding array of federal agencies that administer the welfare/entitlements.
Tough cookies. The public charge rule has been long established. In fact it’s spirit was also incorporated into the ‘welfare reform’ signed by Clinton in ’96 which Congress made non Citizens categorically ineligible for ‘welfare’ other than those with lawful permanent residents (green card holders) and those already granted temporary permissive lawful status as a valid/approved refugee/asylum.
Please please please d/prog ….pretty please with sugar on top ….go ahead and make the midterms a referendum about whether illegal aliens :
1. Should be eligible for ‘welfare’ at all (at the expense of US Citizens who pay for it and then must compete for jobs with them)
2. Should NOT have their use of ‘welfare’ used to disqualify any application for lawful temporary or permanent status and /or naturalization.
They will
Make it about poor Americans being kicked off and the media will let them
Americans aren’t even an issue here. Except to the point where there are no benefits left for Americans because non-citizens are using them
Not really. As we see from their 1st sally they’re not even trying to conceal what the d/prog object to. They are straightforwardly making the case that illegal aliens should be ‘entitled’ to ‘welfare’ paid for by hard working US Citizens and that receipt of ‘welfare’ shouldn’t be counted against them when applying for permissive/lawful immigration status.
They gonna have a tough time squaring that circle. IMO, not just to convince ‘normies’ but particularly so when we look at the underlying ‘tribes’ within the d/prog who are in direct competition with one another for their own share of the pie.
This is loser for the d/prog politically. It draws clear lines between Citizens and lawful residents on one side and illegal aliens on the other. That distinction cuts across the usual political divide and the tribalism the d/prog created as it serves to unite the interests of everyone else against illegal aliens. We already see some of this conflict within the d/prog blue jurisdictions as ‘blacks’ wonder just where all the funding from their State/City govt for immigrants is coming from since the ‘black’ community in those places was long told ‘sorry, no $ in the budget for your wish list this year, maybe next year’.
I took an immigration law class my last year of law school, 30+ years ago. The one principle I remember most clearly from the entire class was that every “alien” had the burden to demonstrate to an immigration officer that they would not become a public charge in order to enter the country. If an immigration officer reasonably believed the alien might become a public charge, the officer had the authority to deny entry and put the alien back on a ship or plane out of the country. Only a claim of asylum made at a port of entry could overcome the immigration officer’s judgment.
The Dems disregard the law for one reason only–they want more voters they can control.
Plus the burden to prove they have a lawful basis to enter and to remain.
Its one reason the d/prog and their open borders allies/enablers are so up in arms about the Trump 2.0 Admin using ‘applying’ for entry protocols in the interior to border getaways.
“The Dems disregard the law for one reason only–they want more voters they can control.”
I initially misread this as, “they want more voters THAN they can control.”
Then I realized that the ascendency of the DSA was proof that was true also.
Well see here’s the thing. It doesn’t really matter that the law is against them when the federal judiciary supports them. In case you haven’t noticed, this is what will happen. Temporary injunction. More back and forth procedural wasting of time. Permanent injunction. Appeal. Injunction affirmed. More procedural wasting of time. Maybe (or not) a S.Ct. reversal. More procedural wasting of time. Crazy judge finds an alternative reason to enjoin. Repeat the above.
Agreed. This IS a hill to die on. Open borders AND a welfare state is not just unsustainable economic doom, but the second-fastest way to conquer a country next to armed assault.
We have plenty of “national historical tradition” against admitting public charges, and the laws on that topic have not changed, so far as I know.
“What’s more, it could also have a ‘chilling effect'”
Maybe that will counteract global warming.
Actually that’s the whole point. To discourage welfare charges from trying to immigrate. Now one can legitimately disagree with this policy, that’s fine. The problem is that this is a matter of policy. Something set by Congress, not the judiciary. And Congress, through longstanding statutes, has spoken, whatever one’s view. Even if a crazy federal judge happens to disagree.
“New Yorkers will be afraid to see a doctor or ask for help they are legally entitled to.”
The solution is to make NYC appear larger on the map and then they will feel more entitled.
View of the World from 9th Avenue
Trump Administration: invoked the Immigration Act to prohibit entry into the United States of “any convict, lunatic, idiot, or any person unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge.”
Democrats: sued because they want more lunatics, idiots and scummy people who will be a public charge.
Don’t forget to supersize all the hospitals, too.
On the map, of course.
A state can decide they will expand welfare to green card holders but that doesn’t change FEDERAL law.
WTF!!!!
I-134 and I-864, pretty much spell it out in no uncertain terms.
It used to be that to be accepted as an immigrant you had to have a sponsor and a sponsor had to be financially responsible too, This is what led to chain migration where a family member would come over and become established before sponsoring other members of the family. We have to return to such a system,
The notion that people can just show up and freeload is insane. The notion that such people expect to freeload and are angry when there is pushback is also insane. The notion they we had perhaps still have offices overseas and cell programs that guide freeloaders we neither need to want is triply insane. So is the notion of supporting any NGO whose sole business is to cater to these freeloaders or any freeloaders for that matter,
Citizens who are truly needy should be helped, I have no problems with that. However they amount of abuse and the entitlement of abusers is off the charts and we need to do something about that and do it now, As for immigrant abusers they need to be shown the door and all immigration should be halted for 10 years except in very specific cases,
This is just too much. Democrats are openly fighting to keep wrong from being put right. All this will end some day and I think badly.
I’m so old, I remember when immigrants had to have a sponsor to be able to immigrate.
Good times.
If you can’t pay your own way, don’t come here. And certainly don’t start pumping out children. Tough sh*t. Go home.
I’d really like to see where the plaintiffs have standing. I can’t see how this could possibly cause them damage, at least in a financial sense. But are they really going to go into court and say this makes cheating elections harder?
Neither of my grandmothers got federal help going through Ellis Island. Nor did however many great-gradndfather when he came ashore at Plymouth Rock. Of course there wasn’t a USA at the time.
Why is this an issue for the courts at all?
We don’t like it — I’d say “Because votes for our permanent power.” but that would be cynical — so stop it. OK, fine, but why the courts? Pass a law vs. this “it means this / it means that” theater. (AIR it’s Alito among The Supremes, his decisions, concurrences, n the rest often include: “You wanna do that, pass a law that says this.”)
It’s like the screaming meemies want to pretend they’re doing something, without risking the issue ever going away. They’re good at this, actually.
On a strongly related issue, I came across this item on the Daily Wire today:
“More than half of all infant formula purchased in the United States is paid for with USDA funds through WIC.”
I can’t be the only one who recognizes this as a serious social danger signal.
Which is one reason I argued for stopping eligibility for WIC/TANF/EBT/Sec 8 any other ‘welfare program’ for UNMARRIED people. Remove the incentives and people will adjust their behavior.
Instead of rewarding out of wedlock births and non committed relationships (non married) with financial subsidies shift that support exclusively to Married households. Instead of a family court assigning the baby daddy ‘child support’ instead have a state mandated shotgun marriage. If that particular baby momma already has a court assigned baby daddy husband from a prior child …oops that’s bigamy send her to jail b/c that’s the rule; have an out of wedlock child and you mist marry the father, no exceptions other than a sustainable charge of rape. Neither parent wish to meet their responsibilities? They can surrender their parental rights and the child is placed for adoption BUT both parents are sterilized so they gotta think hard about the decision and not simply promise to behave in the future.
We’ve created a cultural, societal and legal safety net that in practice subsidizes bad decisions. We must stop treating women as perpetual victims, without any agency to make decisions and shielding them from the inevitable consequences of the bad decisions, poor choices. Same for men.
Perhaps the Federal government should get out of the welfare business and turn it over to the states who are require to balance their budgets, and maybe the states should turn it over to the cities and counties. Where taxpayer money is involved, the closer to the people the better.
All governments at any level should get out of the welfare business entirely. Welfare and other charity should be relegated to a citizen-by-citizen basis, with organized middlemen available to solicit for non-local causes or to provide promotional effort for focused cases.
Again, the only attribute that distinguishes every government from every private society is its unique authorization to initiate force to achieve its goals. If that attribute is not necessary (or is counterproductive) then a government should not be involved. It’s a recipe for fraud and disaster, as shown by incidents such as the “Violence in Boston” affair; Clinton’s “Americorps” tax money sink (no intentional fraud, just general government ineffectiveness and ineptitude); and the debacle of the Combined Federal Campaign (the government analog of The United Fund for federal employees and military servicemembers).
From my time in the Pentagon, I remember the latter as a particularly pernicious abuse, as civil departments and military commands were each assigned a “suggested” goal or quota for each annual campaign. Employees and soldiers who declined to participate received unofficial “negative social credit” with their COs. Talk about your “charity” backed by initiation of force…
It would appear that there is nothing that the Democrats would not think of suing Trump over.
I remember from my civics class in HS in the early 70s that it was the 1800s law that any legal immigrant had to have a job support. This also gave no benefits to legal immigrants or illegal aliens.
It seems that Biden’s Admin and many various states and cities have stopped following the law. Trump’s Admin is forcing the law to be followed. The various states and cities are suing to not follow the law and likely the Judiciary in places will not follow the law until SCOTUS makes it valid again.
“It seems that Biden’s Admin and many various states and cities have stopped following the law.”
Transparently so. Biden egregiously ignored the law for four years, whining that his hands were tied and that he needed “new laws” to stem the flood of immigrants he was simply letting waltz through. Meanwhile, he was actively tearing down state-based efforts to stem illegal immigration, such as local state- and privately-constructed border barriers in Texas and Arizona. Trump showed Biden up as the foul liar he was by stopping immigration cold with only the existing laws. The Democrats immediately fought back with lawfare. The MSM went all “nothing to see here.”
It’s no different from their warped take on election security. Trump (I won’t even say “Republicans”) wants to make it impossible for noncitizens and phony phantom citizens to cast ballots. Democrats counter by implying that Trump is trying to suppress citizen votes from Democrat strongholds. The actual issue on both sides is phony ballots, practically all of which are voted for Democrats.