New York City Leads National Coalition Suing to Block Trump Administration's New 'Public Charge' Rule

Get an AI summary: Perplexity ChatGPT Claude Gemini

New York City is once again at the center of a legal battle over immigration policy. On September 14, Mayor Zohran Mamdani announced that the city had filed a federal lawsuit challenging a new "public charge" rule from the Department of Homeland Security: a rule that could reshape how immigration officers decide who is allowed to obtain a green card in America.

According to the NYC Mayor's Office, the lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by New York City alongside Chicago, San Francisco, Santa Clara County, Seattle, King County and the nonprofit Public Rights Project. It landed the same day as a parallel, related case in which New York Attorney General Letitia James led a coalition of 21 other states and the District of Columbia in a separate suit seeking to halt the same rule. Together, the two filings represent one of the broadest state-and-local pushbacks yet against a second-term Trump administration immigration policy.

As always, here, our EB1A experts have dived straight into the heart of this important analysis.

What the rule actually does

The public charge doctrine has existed in U.S. immigration law for more than a century. In essence, the doctrine enables the government to deny green cards or visas to applicants deemed likely to become primarily dependent on public assistance. Historically, immigration officers weighed only cash-based benefits (such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or Supplemental Security Income) when making that determination.

The new DHS rule changes that calculus dramatically. Per the coalition's complaint, it expands the government's authority to weigh an immigrant's use of virtually any means-tested or income-based public benefit. The screening is supposed to take place without clear definitions or meaningful guardrails, while giving individual officers wide discretion to make decisions plaintiffs describe as inconsistent and discriminatory. CNN reports the rule change widens the list of government aid programs officials can cite as grounds to reject an applicant, and that it is set to take effect September 18.

This is not the first time such an expansion has been attempted. A similar rule from Trump's first term was blocked by a nationwide preliminary injunction in 2019 after a lawsuit led by Attorney General James and joined by Connecticut, Vermont and New York City, according to the AG's 2020 statement; that outcome was later upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The new coalition is asking a federal judge to repeat that outcome by declaring the 2026 rule unlawful and vacating it entirely.

The stakes for families and public health

City and state officials argue the rule's real damage won't come only from direct denials, but from fear. They warn that eligible immigrant families, and even households not directly subject to the rule, will pull back from health care, nutrition assistance and other services rather than risk their immigration status, a so-called "chilling effect." According to wire coverage in the Daily Astorian, New York City itself estimates it would see roughly 6,000 fewer annual primary care visits as a result, while the broader coalition suit warns that roughly 1.3 million people, including 600,000 children, could lose access to care and coverage across the plaintiff jurisdictions.

Toby Merrill, Litigation Director at the Public Rights Project, framed the legal argument bluntly: "DHS cannot rewrite the law to push essential services out of reach." Attorney General James struck a similar note describing the burden on families, telling The Hill that "hardworking families should not be forced to go without the support they need" out of fear of deportation.

A coalition spanning the country

Beyond New York, city and county officials across the country joined the suit with their own warnings. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson said the policy would force families to choose between medical care and their future in the country. In this context, he noted that more than half of Chicago's residents were born outside the U.S.

San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu called it an attempt to impose a "wealth test for citizenship." Seattle City Attorney Erika Evans and King County Prosecuting Attorney Leesa Manion both framed the rule as a betrayal of the immigrant contributions that built their cities, while Santa Clara County Counsel Tony LoPresti said the rule was designed to pressure families into dropping health coverage and food assistance out of fear.

The Attorney General's separate suit is joined by 20 additional states, the District of Columbia and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, according to The Washington Sun. States including California, Colorado, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico and Wisconsin are also part of the coalition, per KPBS Public Media.

For now, the rule remains scheduled to take effect September 18, and it is unclear whether a court will intervene beforehand, as one did in 2019. At GCEB1, our EB1A consultants are staying vigilant about the future of the rule and even all the updates that are to come. Stay tuned to GCEB1 to read all the latest analysis and insights on the U.S. immigration landscapes. We wish you a safe and stress free immigration journey ahead.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is the "public charge" rule?

It's a provision of U.S. immigration law that lets the government deny a green card or visa to someone it believes is likely to become primarily dependent on government assistance. The new DHS rule broadens what counts as a "public benefit" that can be held against an applicant.

2. When does the new rule take effect?

It is scheduled to take effect on September 18, 2026, unless a court blocks or delays it.

3. Who is suing to stop it?

Two related but separate lawsuits were filed in the Southern District of New York on September 14: one led by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani on behalf of a coalition of cities and counties, and another led by New York Attorney General Letitia James on behalf of 21 states and Washington, D.C.

4. Which cities and counties joined New York City's lawsuit?

Chicago, San Francisco, Santa Clara County, Seattle, King County (Washington) and the nonprofit Public Rights Project.

5. What benefits could be counted against an immigrant under the new rule?

The complaint says the rule allows officers to weigh use of nearly any means-tested or income-based public benefit: a major expansion from the narrower, cash-assistance-focused standard used historically.

6. Has a similar rule been blocked before?

Yes. A comparable rule introduced during Trump's first term was halted by a nationwide preliminary injunction in 2019–2020 after a lawsuit led by Attorney General James, and that outcome was upheld by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

7. How many people could be affected?

The city-led coalition's suit estimates roughly 1.3 million people, including 600,000 children, could lose access to care and coverage across the plaintiff jurisdictions.

8. Does the rule apply even to immigrants who don't use public benefits?

Officials warn the rule's "chilling effect" could extend beyond those it technically targets, discouraging even legally eligible families from seeking benefits or services out of fear or confusion.

9. What should immigrant New Yorkers do if they have questions about their rights?

They can call the Mayor's Office of Immigrant Affairs Immigration Legal Support Hotline at 1-800-354-0365, or dial 311 and say "Immigration Legal," to be connected with free, confidential legal help in their preferred language.

Sources & further readings

• New York City Mayor’s Office. “New York City Leads Cities and Counties in Lawsuit Challenging Federal Government’s New Public Charge Rule.” September 14, 2026.
• New York City Mayor’s Office. “Transcript: Mayor Mamdani New York City Leads Cities and Counties in Lawsuit Challenging Federal Government’s New Public Charge Rule.” September 15, 2026.
• New York State Office of the Attorney General. “Attorney General James Leads Major Challenge to Trump Administration’s Attack on Immigrant Families.” September 14, 2026.
• Public Rights Project. “New York City and Local Governments Sue DHS over Attack on Immigrants’ Access to Public Benefits.” September 14, 2026.
• U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. “Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility.” Federal Register 91, no. 137 (July 20, 2026): 45324–45477.
• U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. “US Citizenship and Immigration Services Rescinds 2022 Public Charge Regulation.” July 16, 2026.
• American Immigration Lawyers Association. “USCIS Final Rule on the Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility.” July 20, 2026.
• Reuters. “States, Cities Sue to Block Trump Immigration Rule on Public Benefits.” September 14, 2026.
• Associated Press. “States, Cities Sue over Trump Rule Seeking to Deny Green Cards to Immigrants Using Public Benefits.” September 14, 2026.
• Axios. “NYC, Other Cities Fight Trump Rule Weighing Immigrants’ Benefits.” September 14, 2026.
• The Wall Street Journal. “Mamdani Sues Trump Administration over New Immigration Rule.” September 15, 2026.