A major public charge lawsuit is now in federal court. On September 14, 2026, a coalition of 22 states and Washington, D.C., led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s new public charge policy. The coalition asks the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to declare the rule unlawful and stop its implementation. The new rule is currently scheduled to take effect on September 18, 2026.
What Is the New Public Charge Rule?
The new rule rescinds the narrower public charge regulations adopted in 2022. It gives immigration officers significantly more discretion when deciding whether a person is likely to become a public charge in the future. For adjustment of status applications filed on or after September 18, USCIS officers may consider an applicant’s application for, approval for, or receipt of means-tested government benefits as part of the overall public charge analysis.
This may include programs such as Medicaid and certain other income-based health programs, SNAP food assistance, income-based housing assistance, certain state and local assistance programs, and other food, health, housing, or financial benefits where eligibility depends on income or financial need.
Receiving a public benefit does not automatically mean a green card denial. Public benefits are one part of a broader totality of the circumstances analysis. Officers may also examine the applicant’s age, health, family circumstances, financial resources, income, education, and employment history. For the full breakdown of what USCIS considers, review DHS’s public charge guidance. Learn more about how the new public charge rule works.
Does the New Rule Apply to Benefits Already Received?
The expanded policy generally applies prospectively. For benefits excluded under the previous public charge framework, DHS stated that an applicant’s application for or receipt of those benefits will only come under scrutiny if it occurs on or after September 18, 2026.
The rule applies to adjustment of status applications postmarked or electronically submitted on or after September 18. It also applies to applications for admission made on or after that date. Applicants considering consular processing should also review how this rule applies before departing the United States.
What About Benefits Received by U.S. Citizen Children?
The new policy has caused significant concern among mixed-status families. DHS stated that USCIS generally will not treat benefits received by a U.S. citizen child or other family member as though the immigration applicant personally received those benefits.
However, information concerning the family’s benefits may affect the analysis of the applicant’s financial situation. USCIS may consider whether the applicant’s income falls below an eligibility threshold. They may also examine whether benefits received by a family member are actually supporting the applicant.
Immigrant parents of U.S. citizen children should not automatically cancel benefits without first obtaining individualized immigration advice.
Why Did 22 States File the Public Charge Lawsuit?
The states argue that DHS exceeded the authority Congress gave it under the immigration laws. The public charge lawsuit claims the new rule is overly broad. It leaves immigration officers without sufficiently clear standards for deciding how much weight to give different forms of government assistance.
The states also argue the policy violates federal administrative law. They predict it could cause widespread confusion among immigrant families.
Participating jurisdictions include New York, New Jersey, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Maryland, Washington, Virginia, Colorado, Connecticut, Minnesota, Oregon, Wisconsin, and others, together with Washington, D.C. Pennsylvania’s governor also joined the challenge.
State officials argue that immigrants and their family members may stop using healthcare, nutrition, and housing programs out of fear. Accepting assistance could jeopardize a future green card in their minds, even when it legally should not.
A Second Public Charge Lawsuit Was Filed the Same Day
A separate lawsuit came from New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, Santa Clara County, Seattle, and King County, Washington. These local governments similarly argue that the new policy gives immigration officers excessive discretion.
They also say the rule could create a chilling effect in immigrant communities. Families may avoid medical treatment, food assistance, housing programs, and other services even when legally eligible. Local governments contend this could increase homelessness, uncompensated medical care, food insecurity, and other costs that cities and counties will absorb.
Is This the First Public Charge Court Battle?
No. Public charge has been one of the most heavily litigated areas of immigration law in recent years. During President Trump’s first administration, DHS adopted a substantially broader public charge policy in 2019. That rule generated nationwide litigation before the Biden administration abandoned it and adopted the narrower 2022 framework.
The 2026 rule again moves federal policy toward a much broader examination of public benefits and an applicant’s financial self-sufficiency. The new lawsuits may become another major test of how far the executive branch may expand the public charge ground of inadmissibility. Learn more about how immigration courts fast-track removal cases in today’s enforcement environment.
Has the Public Charge Rule Been Blocked Yet?
Not yet. As of September 15, 2026, the filing of these lawsuits has not itself stopped the rule from taking effect. The challengers are asking the federal court to intervene. Unless a judge issues an injunction or other order before September 18, the new public charge framework remains scheduled to take effect that day.
For immigrants preparing to file for adjustment of status, the September 18 effective date may therefore be extremely important. Review realistic USCIS case timelines to understand how long processing may take after filing.
Who Is Exempt From the Public Charge Rule?
Many humanitarian categories are exempt from public charge inadmissibility entirely, including refugees and asylees, VAWA self-petitioners, U visa applicants, T visa applicants, and Special Immigrant Juveniles. If you fall into one of these categories, the public charge lawsuit and rule change may not affect your case at all.
What Should Green Card Applicants Do Now?
Do not cancel benefits for yourself or your U.S. citizen children without speaking to an attorney first. Don’t rush to file an incomplete application just to beat the deadline. Do not make assumptions based on social media posts or rumors.
If you or a family member receives Medicaid, SNAP, housing assistance, or another income-based public benefit and you are applying for a green card, speak with an experienced immigration attorney before making any decisions. Also review whether family-based or humanitarian immigration options exempt you from the public charge test entirely. If you already received a USCIS RFE or NOID related to public charge, contact an attorney immediately.
Shepelsky Law Group closely follows the public charge lawsuit and changes in USCIS policy. Call us at (718) 769-6352 or book your consultation at shepelskylaw.cliogrow.com/book.