New York, California, Colorado and 19 other states joined New York City, Chicago and Seattle on 14 September 2026 in twin lawsuits challenging the Biden-revoked but now Trump-revived “public charge” regulation that makes it easier for immigration officers to deny green-card and visa applications if an applicant has used—or is deemed likely to use—public benefits such as SNAP, Medicaid or housing vouchers. The rule is scheduled to take effect nationwide on 18 September. Filed in the Southern District of New York, the complaints argue the regulation unlawfully expands the statutory definition of “public charge,” was promulgated without adequate economic analysis and will force immigrant families to forego essential services, hurting state and municipal public-health budgets. Plaintiffs cite evidence from the original 2019 version showing a 26 percent drop in children’s Medicaid enrolment among mixed-status families. From a global-mobility perspective, the rule raises the bar for employer-sponsored permanent residence cases that include dependants who may have accessed benefits, and it introduces new documentary requirements—tax transcripts, health-insurance proofs—that can prolong I-485 adjudications. Corporate immigration teams are being urged to audit pending adjustment cases and prepare supplemental Form I-944-like evidence packets in case the rule survives legal scrutiny. DHS maintains the rule protects U.S. taxpayers and promotes self-sufficiency, but critics warn it will chill lawful benefit use during a period of high medical costs and could deter foreign talent from accepting U.S. assignments that require long adjustment timelines. A preliminary injunction hearing has been requested for 17 September; if granted, implementation could pause days before the effective date. Organizations with current green-card sponsorship pipelines should communicate quickly with affected employees, especially those planning international travel that could trigger consular public-charge assessments. Employers may also need to re-evaluate benefit offerings to ensure non-cash assistance does not inadvertently trigger negative factors under the new totality-of-circumstances test.
Source: Associated Press
