NEW YORK — New York City Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani on Monday announced a multijurisdictional lawsuit challenging the federal government’s new “public charge” rule, arguing that the policy unlawfully expands immigration officials’ authority and could discourage immigrant families from seeking health care, food assistance and other public benefits for which they are legally eligible.
The lawsuit, filed Sept. 14 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, is being led by New York City with Chicago, the City and County of San Francisco, Santa Clara County, Seattle, King County, Washington, and the Public Rights Project. A separate legal challenge is being pursued by New York Attorney General Letitia James and other jurisdictions.
The challenged rule is scheduled to take effect as early as Sept. 18, unless a court blocks or delays it. It would broaden the types of means-tested public benefits that immigration officials may consider when making certain “public charge” determinations involving green card and visa applications.
At a news conference, Mamdani said the city fears the rule will discourage immigrants — including some who may not be directly affected by the policy — from seeking services they need.
ADVERTISEMENT
“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. He added that New York City would use “every tool at our disposal” to protect immigrant communities.
City officials contend that the regulation departs from longstanding legal standards governing public charge determinations. The lawsuit argues that the new framework gives federal immigration officers overly broad discretion to consider an applicant’s use of income-based public benefits, potentially leading to inconsistent decisions.
The federal government’s public charge policy generally applies in certain immigration cases in which officials determine whether an applicant is likely to become primarily dependent on government assistance. Under the forthcoming changes, public-benefit use could play a larger role in that analysis, alongside factors such as age, health, family circumstances, income, financial status, education and skills.
New York City Corporation Counsel Steve Banks said the city believes the federal government has exceeded its legal authority.
Banks said no immigrant New Yorker should have to choose between protecting an immigration case and receiving benefits for which the person is legally eligible. The coalition’s complaint argues that the new rule abandons established limits on how public charge findings have historically been made.
Officials warn of fear and confusion
Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs Commissioner Faiza N. Ali said changes to the rule have already generated concern among immigrant communities and could prompt families to avoid health care and other services.
The city’s concern extends beyond people directly subject to public charge determinations. Officials say relatives, including U.S. citizens and others who remain eligible for public programs, could also stop using benefits because they misunderstand how the rule applies to their household.
New York City’s immigration guidance says people should not discontinue public benefits or city services they need without first consulting a qualified legal provider. The city also notes that a family member’s receipt of benefits does not, by itself, automatically determine another applicant’s public charge status.
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, whose city joined the lawsuit, said the policy could force families to weigh basic needs against immigration concerns. Officials from Seattle, San Francisco, Santa Clara County and King County issued similar statements, arguing that reduced participation in health and nutrition programs could also shift financial and public-health costs onto local governments.
Two legal challenges move forward
The New York City-led case is proceeding alongside the separate challenge involving Attorney General James. The parallel lawsuits seek judicial review before the rule takes effect. CBS New York reported Monday that Mamdani and James announced the legal actions as part of a broader effort to block implementation of the federal policy.
The legal fight is expected to focus in part on how much discretion federal agencies have to redefine which public benefits may be considered in immigration decisions and whether the administration complied with governing immigration and administrative law.
For immigrant New Yorkers, the immediate question is whether a federal court will intervene before Sept. 18.
Until then, New York City officials are urging residents not to make decisions about dropping benefits based solely on fear of the new rule. The Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs says New Yorkers can call 1-800-354-0365 or 311 and ask for “Immigration Legal” to obtain free and confidential immigration legal assistance.