Coalition of 22 States Sues the Trump Administration Over New Green Card Rule

A coalition of 22 states and Washington, D.C., filed a federal lawsuit on Monday, September 14, 2026, to block a new Department of Homeland Security rule that expands immigration officers' ability to deny green cards based on the use of public benefits. The legal challenge, filed alongside a separate municipal lawsuit in the Southern District of New York, argues that the administration's policy exceeds federal authority and will cause widespread fear among immigrant families.

The new Department of Homeland Security rule is scheduled to take effect on Friday. Unlike the Biden administration's 2022 rule—which largely restricted evaluations to cash assistance like TANF and SSI—the new regulation rescinds those parameters. It permits immigration officers to evaluate any means-tested public benefits and allows them to consider benefits applied for on behalf of family members, including U.S. citizen children.

Why are the states suing?

New York Attorney General Letitia James led a coalition of 21 states and Washington, D.C.—with reports from The Guardian and ABC7 Chicago placing the total state count at 22—arguing that the rule is arbitrary and capricious. Plaintiff states estimate they stand to lose approximately $2.2 billion in reduced federal payments for Medicaid and CHIP programs, with nationwide losses reaching $4.05 billion annually.

Letitia James stated at a Manhattan press conference on Monday, September 14, 2026: "Hardworking families should not be forced to go without the support they need because they fear asking for assistance will get them deported." Letitia James also added: "Cruelty is the point. Having a chilling effect on immigrants is the point. Letting individuals know that they are not welcome here is the point. Immigration animus is the point."

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani echoed those concerns at City Hall, stating: "The new public charge rule seeks to push immigrant families away from the programs that have kept people fed and healthy for decades. New Yorkers will be afraid to see a doctor or ask for help they are legally entitled to."

What is the Department of Homeland Security's defense?

The Department of Homeland Security defended the policy in an emailed statement reported by CNN, asserting that "sanctuary states are terrified they will lose federal funds" because hundreds of thousands of people "might remove themselves from American welfare programs."

Legal experts note the administration's shift away from a defined list of benefits creates broad new latitude. David Bier, Director of Immigration Studies at the Cato Institute, told Fox News: "I think from that standpoint, the states have a good argument that we had a well-defined public charge rule and the administration didn't replace it with some other well-defined rule, it replaced it with nothing. So now there's just discretion to the officers to do whatever they want with the underlying statute."

What happens next in court?

Both the state coalition and city-led lawsuits ask the federal court to declare the rule unlawful, invalidate it, and prevent the Department of Homeland Security from enforcing it. As of Monday afternoon, September 14, 2026, neither lawsuit had been assigned a judge or scheduled for a hearing, and the ultimate outcome of the injunction requests remains unconfirmed.