Immigrant groups sue over new US public charge rule

NEW YORK, United States (CMC) — Several immigrant advocacy groups in New York have filed a federal lawsuit challenging a new Trump administration rule that expands the circumstances in which public benefits can be considered when determining whether some immigrants qualify for lawful permanent resident status. The lawsuit, filed on Friday in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeks to have the rule and related guidance vacated. The plaintiffs are Make the Road New York (MRNY), the New York Legal Assistance Group (NYLAG), the Association to Benefit Children (ABC), and African Communities Together. They are represented by Democracy Forward, The Legal Aid Society and the Center for Constitutional Rights. The new rule, which took effect on Friday, allows US immigration authorities to consider a broader range of public benefits when assessing certain applications for permanent residency. The rule applies to relevant applications for admission and adjustment of status filed from that date. The plaintiffs allege that the rule and related guidance violate the US Administrative Procedure Act and conflict with the Immigration and Nationality Act. MRNY said the new policy departs from the long-standing interpretation of the public charge provision by allowing consideration of benefits including health insurance, food and housing assistance, Head Start, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit and Pell Grants. The organisation said the rule could discourage immigrants and their families from accessing benefits for which they are eligible. MRNY also alleges that the policy gives Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officers broad discretion in making public charge determinations and could result in harmful effects on immigrant communities. The organisation said DHS acknowledges that the rule could have a “massive chilling effect” on the use of public benefits by non-citizens, including some people who are not subject to the rule, as well as US citizen children. MRNY said the lawsuit challenges the rule on several grounds, including that it is arbitrary and capricious and exceeds the administration’s legal authority. The organisation also cited a 2019 attempt by US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and DHS to broaden the public charge standard. According to MRNY, federal appeals courts found aspects of that policy unlawful and beyond the agencies’ authority. MRNY Co-Executive Director Rebecca Telzak told the Caribbean Media Corporation (CMC) that the new rule would cause harm to immigrant families and public services. “Despite the rule changes not yet in effect, we have witnessed the chilling effect on immigrant communities; and even among those who are categorically exempt or will not be impacted, their fears have led to questioning unnecessary disenrollment from critical public benefits,” she said. Susan Welber, supervising attorney at The Legal Aid Society, said the rule could affect households that rely on government assistance to supplement their income. Angelo Guisado, a senior staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, criticised the administration’s policy and said it would disproportionately affect poor people, Black and Brown people and immigrants. Skye Perryman, president and chief executive officer of Democracy Forward, said the administration did not have the authority to penalise people for accessing assistance for which they and their children are eligible. Julie Brandfield, director of NYLAG’s Legal Health Unit, said the organisation expects the rule to affect more New Yorkers seeking access to public benefits while pursuing permanent residency. The case is Make the Road New York et al v USCIS et al.