Skip to main content

Sign up for our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values. Direct to your inbox.

For Immediate Release


Yatziri Tovar, Make the Road New York, (917) 771-2818,

Alejandra Lopez, The Legal Aid Society, (917) 294-9348,

Jen Nessel, Center for Constitutional Rights, (212) 614-6449,

Press Release

Judge Blocks "Public Charge" Immigration Rule From Going Into Effect

First Nationwide Preliminary Injunction Is Granted on Public Charge

Today, a federal judge blocked the Trump administration’s new “public charge” rule, which was scheduled to go into effect on Tuesday, October 15, 2019. The rule would have radically transformed the test for determining whether someone might become a “public charge” and impose an unprecedented wealth test on noncitizens seeking family-based adjustment of status.  Today’s order issuing a preliminary injunction—the first to be granted nationwide on this issue—blocks the regulation and related application forms from taking effect until a final decision is reached in the litigation. Crucially, any benefits received while the injunction is pending cannot be used against individuals applying for adjustment of status.

The Center for Constitutional Rights, The Legal Aid Society, and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP filed the lawsuit on behalf of Make the Road New York, African Services Committee, Asian American Federation, Catholic Charities Community Services, and Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC). New York State Attorney General Letitia James, joined by the States of Connecticut and Vermont and the City of New York, filed a separate lawsuit challenging the rule. Both lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In his decision today, Judge George B. Daniels wrote, “The Rule is simply a new agency policy of exclusion in search of a justification.  It is repugnant to the American Dream of the opportunity for prosperity and success through hard work and upward mobility. Immigrants  have  always  come  to  this  country  seeking  a better  life  for themselves and their posterity.  With or without help, most succeed.”

Javier H. Valdés, Co-Executive Director at Make the Road New York, said, “Today’s decision marks a major defeat for the Trump administration’s unlawful tactic to impose a racist wealth test on our immigration system. People should be able to access vital and life-saving benefits without having to worry if they could remain with their families. We will continue to stand up to this administration’s onslaught on immigrants and people of color—we will fight and protect our communities from inhumane policy changes every step of the way."

“The Legal Aid Society is relieved by this preliminary result, which will protect plaintiffs, our clients, and low-income and disabled immigrants across the nation while we seek permanent relief from this unlawful, anti-family, and racist rule,” said Janet Sabel, CEO and Attorney-in-Chief of The Legal Aid Society. “We hope the court’s decision sends a message to DHS to withdraw this unlawful rule, and to the Department of Justice to abandon its plans to adopt a similar rule attacking immigrants in the deportation context.”

 “Today’s decision stops the implementation of this arbitrary and discriminatory rule, which targets immigrants with medical conditions and low-income immigrants of color,” said Ghita Schwarz, Senior Staff Attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights. “The court rightly recognized that the rule flouts the law and cannot be enforced anywhere in the United States.” 

For more than 100 years, the designation “public charge” in federal immigration law has referred only to a narrow category of people who are institutionalized or otherwise completely or primarily dependent upon public assistance. The rule blocked today would redefine the term to include anyone the immigration service deems in its wide-ranging discretion is likely to receive, even temporarily or at a distant point in the future, any amount, however minimal, of a wide range of cash and non-cash benefits, including food assistance, healthcare, and housing assistance. To make that determination, government officials would consider an array of disparate factors including English proficiency, credit scores, and age. Those applying for family-based adjustment of status and deemed a public charge would be denied permanent immigration status. The lawsuits claim the rule would throw the existing immigration system into disarray and erect a racist wealth test as a barrier to family-based immigration.

The cases will now proceed, allowing the court to determine the legality of the proposed public charge rule. The lawsuit on behalf of community groups claims the rule violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, as well as the Equal Protection Clause because the rule was motivated by unconstitutional racial animus and was intended to affect immigrants from countries with primarily non-white populations. Filings in the case point to statements demonizing immigrants of color uttered by Trump administration officials involved in drafting the rule.

For more information, visit the Center for Constitutional Rights’ case page.


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.

ACLU Demands 'Truly Systemic Overhaul' of US Civilian Harm Policies

"While a serious Defense Department focus on civilian harm is long overdue and welcome, it's unclear that this directive will be enough," says director of the legal group's National Security Project.

Jessica Corbett ·

'This Is Not Over': Alaska Supreme Court Rejects Youth Climate Case

"With the state continuing to undermine their health, safety, and futures," said the plaintiffs' lead counsel, "we will evaluate our next steps and will continue to fight for climate justice."

Jessica Corbett ·

Analysis Finds 'Staggering' Rise in Voter Suppression After GOP Restrictions in Georgia

"This is why we are fighting this new law in court," said one voting rights advocate.

Brett Wilkins ·

'Egregious': Pennsylvania Court Strikes Down Mail-In Voting Law

The ruling was stayed pending an appeal to the state's Supreme Court and as one voting advocate put it: "The fight's not over yet, folks."

Julia Conley ·

Big Win for Open Internet as Court Upholds California Net Neutrality Law

One legal advocate called the Ninth Circuit's opinion "a great decision and a major victory for internet users in California and nationwide."

Kenny Stancil ·

Support our work.

We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100% reader supported.

Subscribe to our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values.
Direct to your inbox.

Subscribe to our Newsletter.

Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit | Privacy Policy
Common Dreams Logo