States and Cities Sue to Block New Public Charge Rule

States and Cities Challenge Public Charge Rule Ahead of September 18th Implementation

On September 14, 2026, a coalition of 23 states, the District of Columbia, and six cities and counties filed lawsuits in Manhattan federal court. Their goal is to block a new public charge rule set to take effect on September 18, 2026. This rule, announced by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in July 2026, would allow immigration officials to consider the use of public benefits like Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) when reviewing applications for green cards and certain visas.

The plaintiffs argue that this policy is an unlawful expansion of the immigration standard and that DHS has exceeded its legal authority. They also contend that the rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act. The lawsuits were filed just four days before the rule’s scheduled start date, indicating a strong opposition from these jurisdictions.

Legal Challenges Divided by Government Level

The opposition to the public charge rule is structured across two main legal tracks. New York, California, and Illinois are leading one lawsuit, joined by 23 states and the District of Columbia. A separate lawsuit focuses on local governments, with participants including New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, and Seattle.

New York Attorney General Letitia James and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani are prominent figures in these challenges. They represent jurisdictions that are at the forefront of the litigation. The division into state and local government plaintiffs highlights the widespread concern about the rule’s potential impact across different levels of government.

Concerns Over Fear and Program Disenrollment

A primary concern raised by the plaintiffs is that the rule could instill fear in immigrant families, leading them to forgo essential benefits they are legally entitled to. Attorney General James stated that the policy “preys on that fear,” suggesting that families might abandon health coverage and food assistance programs to avoid jeopardizing their immigration status. This fear-based disenrollment could have significant negative consequences for public health and food security within these communities.

Financial Projections of the Rule’s Impact

The plaintiffs have projected substantial financial repercussions if the public charge rule is allowed to take effect. State officials estimate that the rule could lead to a nationwide reduction in federal payments totaling $4.05 billion annually. Furthermore, states themselves could lose approximately $2.2 billion each year.

Beyond direct financial losses, the policy is also expected to affect program enrollment. New York officials estimate that up to 4 million people might drop their health coverage due to fears related to immigration consequences. These figures underscore the broad economic and social implications of the DHS policy.

Projected Effect	Estimated Impact
Annual nationwide loss in federal payments	$4.05 billion
Annual loss to states	$2.2 billion
People who could drop health coverage	Up to 4 million

These enrollment loss estimates are based on the warning that families might make decisions based on immigration concerns, separate from the rule’s direct review of immigration benefit applicants.

Revival of Previous Policy and Legal Context

The challenged measure effectively revives the public charge policy from the Trump administration era, which had been in place before the Biden administration adopted a narrower standard in 2022. The 2026 rule reintroduces Medicaid, CHIP, and SNAP as benefits that immigration officials can consider in their evaluations. This expansion covers green-card applicants and other immigration categories subject to public-charge review.

This broader challenge follows a recent federal appeals court ruling that upheld a district court decision striking down a DHS rule that had taken effect earlier in 2026. However, that earlier ruling was geographically limited to New York, Vermont, and Connecticut, making the current lawsuits distinct in their broader scope. The DHS has maintained that the rule is intended to ensure applicants are not likely to rely on government assistance.

Frequently Asked Questions