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
Oman's Foreign Minister Said US-Iran Deal Was 'Within Our Reach.' Then Trump Started Bombing
"The Omani FM decided to go public," suggested one observer, "so that the American people knew that peace was within reach when Trump instead opted for war."
Feb 28, 2026
Hours before President Donald Trump announced his decision to bomb Iran and pursue the overthrow of its government, the foreign minister of Oman appeared, in person, on one of the most prominent US television news programs to declare that a diplomatic breakthrough was possible.
"I can see that the peace deal is within our reach," Badr Albusaidi, the mediator of recent talks between the US and Iran, told "Face the Nation" host Margaret Brennan on Friday. "I'm asking to continue this process because we have already achieved quite a substantial progress in the direction of a deal. And the heart of this deal is very important, and I think we have captured that heart."
Pressed for specifics, Albusaidi said that Iran committed during the talks to renounce the possibility of amassing "nuclear material that will create a bomb"—a pledge that Trump claimed Iran refused to make as part of his justification for Saturday's strikes.
"This is something that is not in the old deal that was negotiated during President Obama's time," Albusaidi said, referring to the 2015 nuclear accord that Trump ditched during his first term in the White House. "This is something completely new. It really makes the enrichment argument less relevant, because now we are talking about zero stockpiling. And that is very, very important, because if you cannot stockpile material that is enriched, then there is no way you can actually create a bomb, whether you enrich or don't enrich. And I think this is really something that has been missed a lot by the media, and I want to clarify that from the standpoint of a mediator."
"There is no accumulation, so there would be zero accumulation, zero stockpiling, and full verification," the Omani foreign minister continued. "Full and comprehensive verification by the [International Atomic Energy Agency]."
In a social media post following the interview, Albusaidi reiterated that a deal "is now within reach" and implored all parties to "support the negotiators in closing the deal." Prior to Saturday's attacks, additional US-Iran talks were scheduled for next week.
Watch the full segment, which critics highlighted as evidence that the US-Israeli attacks on Saturday were aimed at forestalling a diplomatic resolution:
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the US-based Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, wrote in response to Albusaidi's remarks that "the Omanis are famously cautious."
"The Omani FM going on CBS to reveal what has actually been achieved in the negotiations is quite unprecedented. And what has been achieved is significant—Trump can indeed declare victory. Listen to this segment—it goes way beyond what Obama achieved," Parsi wrote. "But everything indicates that Trump won't take yes for an answer. That he will start a war of choice very soon."
"Which is probably why the Omani FM decided to go public," Parsi added. "So that the American people knew that peace was within reach when Trump instead opted for war."
According to one survey released earlier this month, just 21% of Americans support "the United States initiating an attack on Iran under the current circumstances."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Iran Demands Emergency United Nations Action Amid 'Criminal Aggression' by US, Israel
"Just as we were ready for negotiations, we are more ready than ever for defense," said the Iranian Foreign Ministry.
Feb 28, 2026
As US and Israeli bombs fell on Tehran, the Iranian Foreign Ministry on Saturday vowed that the country would defend itself against "criminal aggression" and implored the United Nations Security Council to take emergency action.
The ministry said in a lengthy statement that Saturday's attacks, which US President Donald Trump characterized as the start of a massive military operation aimed at overthrowing the Iranian government, represent "a violation of Article 2, Paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter and a clear armed aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran."
"The Islamic Republic of Iran notes the grave duty of the United Nations and its Security Council to take immediate action to confront the violation of international peace and security," reads the ministry's statement, which noted that the US and Israeli assault began "in the midst of a diplomatic process."
"The Iranian people are now proud that they did everything they could to prevent war," the statement continues. "Now is the time to defend the homeland and confront the enemy's military aggression. Just as we were ready for negotiations, we are more ready than ever for defense. The armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran will respond to the aggressors with authority."
Ben Saul, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, condemned US-Israeli "aggression against Iran" in a social media post, calling the assault a "violation of the most fundamental rule of international law—the ban on the use of force."
"All responsible governments should condemn this lawlessness from two countries who excel in shredding the international order," Saul added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Bombs Will Be Dropping Everywhere': Trump Launches Illegal Regime Change War Against Iran
"The US once again used the veneer of negotiations as a cover to bomb Iran."
Feb 28, 2026
President Donald Trump announced in the early hours of Saturday morning that the US has launched a massive military operation aimed at toppling the Iranian government as blasts were reported in Tehran, including near the offices of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Israel, under the leadership of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is taking part in the assault. Unnamed Israeli security sources told Channel 12 that Israel and the Trump administration are "going all in" against Iran as Trump instructed Iranians to "stay sheltered," warning that "bombs will be dropping everywhere." People were seen seeking cover in Tehran as the US and Israeli bombs began to fall.
The assault, dubbed "Operation Epic Fury" by the Pentagon, comes days after the US and Iran took part in talks in Geneva, which Trump's envoys characterized as "positive." In announcing military action on Saturday, Trump said falsely that the Iranian government has "rejected every opportunity to renounce their nuclear ambitions."
The US and Israeli attacks—which both nations characterized as "preemptive"—are plainly illegal under international law, which prohibits the threat or use of force except in response to an armed attack. The Trump administration is also violating US law, which gives Congress the sole power to declare war.
"The term 'preemptive' is pure propaganda," wrote Drop Site journalist Jeremy Scahill. "The US once again used the veneer of negotiations as a cover to bomb Iran. Tehran had just offered terms that went far beyond the 2015 nuclear deal. What was preempted was diplomacy. The same propaganda tactics used in the 2003 Iraq war."
Trump, who ditched the 2015 nuclear deal during his first White House term, repeatedly made clear in his remarks Saturday that he does not intend the new assault on Iran to be limited in scope like his bombings of Iranian nuclear sites last year. In the weeks leading up to Saturday's attack, the Trump administration carried out a massive military buildup in the Middle East even as the president publicly claimed he was open to a diplomatic resolution.
"We may have casualties," the US president said of American troops. "That often happens in war. But we're doing this not for now. We're doing this for the future."
Trump also urged the Iranian armed forces to surrender or "face certain death."
The Iranian government's immediate response to Saturday's onslaught was a pledge of "crushing retaliation" and a wave of drone and missile attacks on Israel. The Associated Press reported that "hours after the strikes on Iran, explosions rocked northern Israel as the country worked to intercept incoming Iranian missiles."
Iran's foreign minister later informed his Iraqi counterpart that Iran would be targeting US military installations in the region in retaliation for Saturday's attacks.
A spokesperson for the Iranian military declared that "we will teach Israel and America a lesson they have never experienced in their history."
"Any base that helps America and Israel will be the target of the Iranian armed forces," the official added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


