Coalition of 22 States and DC Challenge Public Charge Rule; Separate Lawsuit Filed by Cities and Counties

By NLIHC Policy Team

On September 14, New York Attorney General Letitia James announced that a coalition of 22 states and the District of Columbia filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) final “public charge” rule. Filed concurrently is a separate lawsuit from a coalition of major cities and counties led by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani. Attorney General James previously led a successful legal effort to stop implementation of an earlier version of the public charge rule during the first Trump administration. 

NLIHC and NLIHC’s Disaster Housing Recovery Coalition both submitted comment letters in December 2025 (see Memo, 1/12) opposing the DHS public charge rule. The final rule, effective September 18, 2026, affords DHS officers broad discretion in determining which public benefits can be considered in the “public charge” assessment for Lawful Permanent Residence (“green card”) applications. This rule will likely cause a significant chilling effect on immigrant families’ willingness to access major health, nutrition, and other services, causing devastating economic consequences for millions of low-income immigrants. NLIHC joins the Protecting Immigrant Families Coalition (PIF) in opposing the rule. Commending the lawsuit, PIF issued a statement from executive director Adriana Cadena: 

“We applaud Attorney General James, Attorney General Bonta, Attorney General Raoul, and their colleagues for standing firm against this abusive policy and standing with the people they serve. 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.” 

Background on Public Charge 

The “public charge” inadmissibility test has been a part of federal immigration law for over 140 years. The public charge test considers whether an immigrant will depend on government assistance as their main source of support. The test does not apply to all immigrants but instead applies to people applying for a green card (Lawful Permanent Resident status) through their family members or a visa to come to the United States. Permanent residents seeking citizenship are not subject to the public charge determination. Additionally, humanitarian immigrants seeking permanent residency are exempt. PIF has a “Does this apply to me?” resource for additional background on when public charge applies.  

Under the first Trump administration, DHS finalized a public charge rule in 2019 that considered Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and housing assistance program benefits in the public charge test, a departure from how public charge had been historically evaluated. The Biden administration revoked the public charge rule in 2022, replacing it with a rule prohibiting the public charge test from considering SNAP, Medicaid, public housing, and other benefits.  

In November 2025, the Trump administration’s DHS proposed to broaden the public charge evaluation again. DHS issued the final public charge rule in July 2026, replacing the 2022 rule. The new public charge rule gives DHS broad discretion on what benefits to examine. Additionally, DHS is given authority to consider assistance given to citizen members of immigrant households.  

Litigation Against the Public Charge Rule 

The plaintiff states in the press release that the rule has “no clear limit” on the benefits which could count against applicants. The coalition argues that the action of the DHS fails legal scrutiny, as the agency’s decision is “arbitrary and capricious,” giving the DHS an authority beyond congressional intent. The litigation pursued by the alliance of cities and counties similarly argues that the DHS rule expands the agency’s power “in a way Congress never intended.” Both 2026 lawsuits seek to stop the public charge rule from being implemented. 

Previous litigation on the first Trump administration’s public charge rulemaking succeeded. In 2019, Attorney General James and a coalition filed a lawsuit to stop the Trump I rule change. In federal district court, a judge issued a preliminary injunction to stop the change, but the Supreme Court stayed this motion and remanded the case to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. After the pandemic began, the Supreme Court granted an appeal to allow the coalition to go back to district court to seek an emergency injunction. The rule change was once again struck down, and the appellate court upheld the decision. 

Read Attorney General James’s press release on the state-led lawsuit. 

Read Mayor Mamdani’s press release on the city-led lawsuit. 

Read PIF’s statement. 

Access PIF’s toolkit on public charge. 

Read the final public charge rule. 

Explore Chapters 6-11 of NLIHC’s 2026 Advocates’ Guide to learn more about the history of public charge.