New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle and D.C. Sued to Block Trump's 'Public Charge' Rule Four Days Before It Takes Effect. Letitia James Filed a Second Suit With 21 States.

New York City filed a 108-page lawsuit in Manhattan federal court on Monday leading a coalition of local governments seeking to throw out the Trump administration's expanded "public charge" rule, which is scheduled to take effect Friday, Sept. 18. Chicago, San Francisco, Santa Clara County, Seattle and the District of Columbia joined the city in the case. New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a separate challenge the same day on behalf of 21 other states and the District of Columbia, also in the Southern District of New York.

The rule, published in July, rewrites the standard immigration officers use to decide whether an applicant for a visa or green card is likely to become dependent on the government. Under current practice, officers consider only public cash assistance for income maintenance and long-term institutionalization at government expense. On or after Sept. 18, according to the complaint, officers will weigh "any and all" means-tested benefits, including housing assistance, food stamps, college financial aid and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, known as WIC. The lawsuit argues that "the term 'public charge' has been understood to mean a person primarily dependent on federal government for cash-based assistance" since the 19th century.

Mayor Zohran Mamdani announced the suit at a press conference alongside James. "The new public charge rule seeks to push immigrant families away from the programs that have kept people fed and healthy for decades," Mamdani said. "New Yorkers will be afraid to see a doctor or ask for help they are legally entitled to." He said the rule "not only sweeps aside more than a century of established law, it is intentionally vague as a means of creating uncertainty and fear to isolate immigrant New Yorkers," and stressed that citizens and people seeking humanitarian relief such as asylum are not affected. Mamdani warned that as many as 4 million people nationally could drop health coverage out of fear that using it would sink an immigration application.

The city's numbers frame the stakes. About 3.1 million New York City residents, roughly 38% of the population, are foreign-born. More than 250,000 children in the city live in households with mixed immigration status, and half of the city's children have at least one immigrant parent. "No immigrant New Yorker should have to choose between their immigration status and benefits for which they are legally eligible," said Corporation Counsel Steve Banks, who is representing the city. Mamdani added that "families who remain fully eligible for benefits will feel a chilling effect, and all New Yorkers will pay for it."

The complaint brings three claims under the Administrative Procedure Act: that the rule and accompanying U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services guidance are contrary to law and exceed the agency's authority, that they are arbitrary and capricious, and that the government skipped required notice-and-comment procedures. The plaintiffs ask the court to vacate both the rule and the guidance and to block their implementation. Federal officials have said the policy simply reinforces an existing legal requirement that immigrants demonstrate financial self-sufficiency.

New York City fought the first Trump administration's public charge rule in the same courthouse in 2019 and 2020, winning an injunction that the Supreme Court later stayed before the Biden administration withdrew the rule. The new suits ask a judge to act before Friday.