New York City v. DHS

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is trying to make it harder for immigrants to enter or stay in the country if they use government benefits like Medicaid, food stamps, or housing assistance. In partnership with New York City, Public Rights Project and five local governments filed a lawsuit challenging DHS’s redefined Public Charge rule.

The new rule would allow immigration officials to consider any use of public assistance — or speculative future use — when determining whether someone is eligible to enter or remain in the country. This will give officials unchecked power with no clear guidelines. It would also reverse longstanding policy that only considered cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutional care at government expense. 

What’s at stake
The new rule targets immigrants and will disproportionately hurt communities of color, women, and people with disabilities.

People will be forced to choose among food, housing, and health care, or risk jeopardizing their ability to obtain a visa, gain admission to the U.S., or adjust their status to green card holder. As a result, immigrants are likely to withdraw from programs that Congress designed to promote stability and upward mobility. DHS’s conservative estimate of a 10% disenrollment rate would leave 1.3 million people, including 600,000 citizen children, without life-improving coverage.

The impact will be acutely felt by local governments. Cities and counties will face increased emergency room costs, public health risks when people avoid medical care, rising homelessness, and reduced economic productivity. This will significantly affect places like New York City, where 3.1 million people are immigrants. Or, in Santa Clara County, where 60% of children have at least one foreign-born parent. Our complaint outlines the range of harms communities will face, including:

Public health risks: New York City expects to see 6,000 fewer annual primary care visits if the rule takes effect. When large populations lack access to health education, immunizations, routine screenings, or treatment for communicable disease, the health of the entire community is at risk, and local governments must expend additional resources. 

Reduced access to education: Seattle preschool program provides free or low-cost education, while a King County program offers health and educational opportunities countywide. With about 19% of Seattle residents and 26% of King County’s residents foreign-born, the final rule is expected to have a chilling effect on both programs.

Financial losses and increased costs: Uncompensated care costs being shifted away from federal health coverage programs will leave hospitals and local governments to absorb greater costs. In 2024, for example, Chicago provided about 50,000 ambulance transports to uninsured residents costing roughly $170 million. The city recovered only about $5 million.

Loss in economic productivity: Research shows SNAP helps stimulate state and local economies. In San Francisco, even with a 10% disenrollment rate among households headed by a noncitizen, the city’s economy is expected to lose roughly $7 million.

The rule is cruel and unlawful: Congress has consistently refused to expand the public charge definition to include noncitizen applicants who receive basic, non-cash assistance from programs designed to promote stability and upward mobility. Courts have also ruled that redefining “public charge” to include short-term or partial use of public benefits violates the Immigration and Nationality Act.

DHS provides no evidence that immigrants who used public benefits became primarily dependent on the government.

Read the lawsuit.