October, 07 2019, 12:00am EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Yatziri Tovar, Make the Road New York, (917) 771-2818, yatziri.tovar@maketheroadny.org
Alejandra Lopez, The Legal Aid Society, (917) 294-9348, ailopez@legal-aid.org
Jen Nessel, Center for Constitutional Rights, (212) 614-6449, jnessel@ccrjustice.org
Immigrant Rights Groups in Court to Halt Public Charge Rule
Judge To Make Final Decision to Grant Preliminary Injunction This Week
WASHINGTON
Immigrant rights groups appeared today in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on Make the Road New York v Cuccinelli - litigation brought last month challenging the Trump administration's unilateral and unconstitutional changes to "public charge."
Plaintiffs today petitioned the court to grant a preliminary injunction before the proposed changes to "public charge" take effect on October 15, 2019. Federal Judge George B. Daniels ordered plaintiffs to submit a proposed order by tomorrow at noon ET, and stated that he would issue a decision on the preliminary injunction by the end of this week.
Attorneys from the Center for Constitutional Rights, The Legal Aid Society, and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP litigated the case on behalf of Make the Road New York, African Services Committee, Asian American Federation, Catholic Charities Community Services, and Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC).
Today, plaintiffs argued that this dramatic change should be halted until the lawfulness of the proposed rule is determined. New York State Attorney General Letitia James has filed a separate lawsuit over the rule, and attorneys from the AG's office also asked the court today to enjoin the rule.
Ghita Schwarz, a senior attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, said, "This rule discriminates based on race, disability, and income in order to drastically reduce the number of immigrants who win permanent status in this country. It flouts the will of Congress and can't be squared with the principles of our immigration statute."
Susan Welber, Staff Attorney in the Law Reform Unit at The Legal Aid Society, said, "This unlawful rule upends family-based immigration, which has been the hallmark of our nation's immigration policy for decades. It goes against our nation's fundamental values and seeks to punish hard-working immigrants, sending them the message that if they are not wealthy they are not welcome. Today, we stood before the court to underscore the critical need to protect our plaintiffs and immigrant family clients from harm by stopping the Rule from taking effect on October 15."
Javier H. Valdes, Co-Executive Director at Make the Road New York, said, "The Trump administration's deliberate attacks to punish immigrants and working class people of color are inhumane and unlawful. Our family-based immigration system should not be a wealth test that disproportionately favors the white and wealthy. This reckless public charge rule change would lead to irreversible damage to immigrant families who need survival services and programs if it is allowed to take effect on October 15th. The courts must act now to protect our legal immigration system and prevent this rule change."
BACKGROUND
On August 14th, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a final version of a new "public charge" regulation, and litigation teams from across the country quickly filed lawsuits challenging it. On August 27th, Make the Road New York, African Services Committee, Asian American Federation, Catholic Charities Community Services, and Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC), represented by The Legal Aid Society, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, filed a complaint seeking a permanent injunction to block the rule from taking effect on October 15th. Attorneys say the rule uses vague, arbitrary, and discriminatory criteria to determine when an individual is likely to become a "public charge," and that even those who would not fall under the new definition are likely to forgo critical benefits such as housing assistance, food assistance, and healthcare, out of fear that accessing those benefits could threaten their immigration status.
The proposed rule would redefine the way the term "public charge" has been understood for more than a century, namely as a category of people who are institutionalized or otherwise completely dependent upon public assistance. In stark contrast, the rule proposed by the Trump administration--and opposed by the great majority of the 266,000 individuals, advocacy groups, and local governments who opposed it during the public comment period--would define as a public charge anyone the immigration service deems likely to receive, even temporarily, any amount, however minimal, of a wide range of cash and non-cash benefits, including Federal Medicaid or housing assistance. Those deemed a public charge would be denied permanent immigration status.
To predict the likelihood that a person will receive public benefits, the government would consider as negative factors an income under 125 percent of the federal poverty guidelines, age under 18 or over 62, medical conditions, lack of private health insurance, below-average credit scores, and limited English proficiency.
The lawsuit claims that the rule violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution because it is motivated by animus towards immigrants of color and intended to disproportionately affect immigrants from countries with primarily non-white populations. Filings in the case point to statements by Trump administration officials involved in drafting the rule demonizing immigrants of color.
In addition to the direct effects upon those deemed a public charge--which attorneys say will tear families apart, lead to increased deportations, and throw the existing immigration system into disarray--the lawsuit further warns that even those who would not technically be covered by the rule will forgo benefits out of fear that accessing them would jeopardize their immigration status--a so-called "chilling effect." To prevent the resulting upheaval, attorneys today asked the judge to issue a preliminary injunction enjoining the rule for the duration of the lawsuit, until the lawfulness constitutionality of the rule is determined.
For more information, see the Center for Constitutional rights case page for Make the Road New York v. Cuccinelli.
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. CCR is committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.
(212) 614-6464LATEST NEWS
Trump's 'Phony Energy Emergency' Used by DOJ to Target State Climate Laws
"There is no energy emergency, and Trump's stated reasoning for it is as much a scam as every other pathetic con and hustle this president attempts," said one consumer campaigner.
May 02, 2025
Defenders of climate and the rule of law blasted the Trump administration on Friday for using what one consumer campaigner called a "phony" emergency to wage lawfare agaist states trying to hold Big Oil financially accountable for the planetary crisis.
On Thursday, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed complaints against New York and Vermont over their climate superfund laws, which empower states to seek financial compensation from fossil fuel companies to help cover the costs of climate mitigation. The burning of fossil fuels is the main driver of human-caused global heating.
Separately, the DOJ also sued Hawaii and Michigan "to prevent each state from suing fossil fuel companies in state court to seek damages for alleged climate change harms."
"The use of the United States Department of Justice to fight on behalf of the fossil fuel industry is deeply disturbing."
Hours later, Hawaii became the 10th state to sue Big Oil for lying about the climate damage caused by fossil fuels. The Aloha State's lawsuit targets ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP, and other corporations for their "decadeslong campaign of deception to discredit the scientific consensus on climate change" and sow public doubt about the existence and main cause of the crisis.
"The federal lawsuit filed by the Justice Department attempts to block Hawaii from holding the fossil fuel industry responsible for deceptive conduct that caused climate change damage," Hawaii Attorney General Anne E. Lopez said. "The use of the United States Department of Justice to fight on behalf of the fossil fuel industry is deeply disturbing and is a direct attack on Hawaii's rights as a sovereign state."
The DOJ on Thursday cited President Donald Trump's April 8 executive order, " Protecting American Energy From State Overreach," which affirms the president's commitment "to unleashing American energy, especially through the removal of all illegitimate impediments to the identification, development, siting, production, investment in, or use of domestic energy resources—particularly oil, natural gas, coal, hydropower, geothermal, biofuel, critical mineral, and nuclear energy resources."
Trump also signed a day-one edict declaring a "national energy emergency" in service of his campaign pledge to "drill, baby, drill" for climate-heating fossil fuels. The "emergency" has been invoked to fast-track fossil fuel permits, including for extraction projects on public lands.
Acting Assistant Attorney General Adam Gustafson of the DOJ's Environment and Natural Resources Division said in a statement Thursday, "When states seek to regulate energy beyond their constitutional or statutory authority, they harm the country's ability to produce energy and they aid our adversaries."
"The department's filings seek to protect Americans from unlawful state overreach that would threaten energy independence critical to the well-being and security of all Americans," Gustafson added.
Robert Weissman, co-president of the consumer advocacy watchdog Public Citizen, on Friday accused the Trump administration of "using a phony energy emergency declaration to illegally attack state climate and clean energy laws."
"There is no energy emergency, and Trump's stated reasoning for it is as much a scam as every other pathetic con and hustle this president attempts," Weissman continued. "Fake constitutional claims based on a fake emergency cannot and will not displace sensible and long overdue state efforts to hold dirty energy corporations accountable."
"These corporations have imposed massive costs on society through their deceptive denial of the realities of climate change, and through rushing us toward climate catastrophe," he added. "It's good policy, common sense, and completely within state authority, for states to hold these corporations accountable."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Social Security Cuts Will Result in New Burden for Millions
"When people can't get their benefits for any reason, that is a benefit cut," said one advocate.
May 02, 2025
A new analysis out Friday makes the case that cuts proposed by the Trump administration to Social Security operations nationwide will create a "significant new burden" for millions of people, particularly "those who live in rural areas or have transportation or mobility difficulties."
Those who collect Social Security benefits will no longer be able to update their direct deposit banking information solely by phone. Instead of verifying their identity via security questions over the phone, the agency will require those who rely on Social Security to use a multifactor authentication process that includes a one-time PIN code or to visit a social security office in person.
The left-leaning think tank behind the new analysis, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), warned Friday that even though Trump officials within the SSA have claimed that the policy shift is designed to reduce fraud, "the agency's own figures show that direct deposit fraud is a very small problem—less than one-hundredth of one percent of benefits are misdirected."
A document from the agency gives "estimated burden figures," which indicates that nearly 2 million beneficiaries will need to visit a field office as a result of the changed process.
An April analysis from CBPP estimated that some 6 million live more than a 45-mile trip away from the nearest Social Security field office.
"The new PIN code requirement will be impossible for many beneficiaries to meet," according to the analysis from CBPP released Friday. "Many seniors and people with disabilities lack internet service, computers or smartphones, or the technological savvy to navigate SSA's online services."
What's more, the analysis states, "the PIN requirement expects callers to complete a multi-step, multifactor authentication and generate a PIN code while on the phone with an agent. Or if they don't have an account, they must hang up, establish an online account, then call back—a not-insignificant inconvenience when most callers to SSA do not reach an agent on the first try, and the wait time for a call back from SSA averages 2.5 hours."
Alex Lawson, executive director of Social Security Works, told Common Dreams on Friday that the CBPP analysis helps show how "the Trump administration and its goons are waging a full scale war against Social Security. They are forcing millions of Americans into Social Security offices at the same time they are cutting a huge percentage of the workforce."
"They are forcing millions of Americans into Social Security offices at the same time they are cutting a huge percentage of the workforce," Lawson added. "The Trump-Musk regime has one goal: Wreak Social Security so they can rob it. When people can't get their benefits for any reason, that is a benefit cut."
Trump, with the help of his billionaire advisor Elon Musk and the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, have endeavored to slash government spending and personnel. A tracker from The New York Times estimates that there has been a 5% staff reduction at SSA, but total planned reductions at the agency could ultimately cut staff by 17%.
Reporting from NPR from last week highlighted how workers at the SSA are struggling to keep up, with fewer staff working to serve over 70 million beneficiaries.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Illinois Man Gets 53 Years in Prison for Vicious Hate-Crime Killing of 6-Year-Old Wadee Alfayoumi
"No sentence can restore what was taken, but today's outcome delivers a necessary measure of justice. Wadee was an innocent child. He was targeted because of who he was—Muslim, Palestinian, and loved."
May 02, 2025
A judge told an Illinois man Friday that his hate-fueled murder of six-year-old Wadee Alfayoumi in October 2023 was "brutal and heinous" as she sentenced him to 53 years in prison.
The sentence was handed down three months after Joseph Czuba, 73, was found guilty of murdering the Palestinian-American kindergartner, who lived with his family in two bedrooms they rented from Czuba in Plainfield Township, Illinois.
Prosecutors found that Czuba became "paranoid and violent" after Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023 and as Israel's bombardment of Gaza's population of 2.3 million Palestinians began in retaliation.
Alfayoumi's mother, Hanan Shaheen, testified during Czuba's trial that he had attacked her first before moving on to stab her son 26 times. Czuba told Shaheen before the attack that the family had to leave their home because they were Muslim.
Mahmoud Yousef, an uncle of Alfayoumi's father, told the court at the sentencing that no prison sentence for Czuba would lessen the family's pain.
"Together, we must build a society where no one lives in fear because of who they are, and no family mourns a loved one lost to hate."
"That's more than just hate, that went way beyond that," Yousef said of the murder. "We're talking about a 6-year-old kid whose father had plans for him."
Yousef also looked directly at Czuba and demanded that he say something to the family "for peace of mind," but Czuba did not speak during the hearing.
"Wadee Alfayoumi should still be alive today," said Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.). "While justice has been served, nothing can bring Wadee back. Together, we must build a society where no one lives in fear because of who they are, and no family mourns a loved one lost to hate."
During the trial, the jury heard Shaheen's frantic 911 call and saw crime scene photos that were so harrowing the judge agreed not to show them to the audience, where Alfayoumi's family was sitting.
"No sentence can restore what was taken, but today's outcome delivers a necessary measure of justice," said Ahmed Rehab, executive director of Chicago's chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. "Wadee was an innocent child. He was targeted because of who he was—Muslim, Palestinian, and loved."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular