A coalition of states sued the Trump administration Monday to block a Department of Homeland Security rule that would give immigration officers broader discretion when deciding whether some immigrants seeking green cards or admission to the United States are likely to become dependent on government assistance. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York four days before the policy is scheduled to take effect on September 18.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, New York Attorney General Letitia James and Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul are leading the multistate challenge. The coalition includes states across the Northeast, Midwest and West, along with the District of Columbia and Pennsylvania’s governor. A separate case filed alongside the state challenge brings together New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, Santa Clara County in California and King County in Washington.

The cases focus on the federal government’s interpretation of the “public charge” provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Federal law has long permitted immigration authorities to find certain noncitizens inadmissible if officials conclude they are likely to become a public charge. The statute directs officers to examine circumstances including an applicant’s age, health, family status, assets, financial resources, education and skills.

What qualifies as evidence of future dependence on government support has repeatedly changed across presidential administrations. During President Donald Trump’s first term, DHS adopted a broader approach that allowed officers to consider participation in several noncash benefit programs. The Biden administration later adopted a narrower 2022 regulation that generally excluded programs such as SNAP food assistance and most Medicaid coverage from the public-charge analysis.

The new DHS rule rescinds that 2022 framework. According to the Federal Register notice, DHS concluded the Biden-era regulation was too restrictive and prevented immigration officers from evaluating all circumstances the department considers relevant under federal law. The administration says the change restores case-by-case discretion and advances a congressional policy that immigrants should generally rely on their own resources, families, sponsors and private support rather than government assistance.

The rule does not establish that the receipt of a particular benefit automatically results in a green-card denial. Public-charge determinations remain based on the totality of an applicant’s circumstances. DHS also says officers generally will not treat a family member’s use of benefits as though the applicant personally received those benefits. Household financial circumstances, however, can still become relevant when officers evaluate an applicant’s assets, resources and overall financial position.

The states contend that the broader discretion creates substantial uncertainty for applicants and families because the government has not established sufficiently clear limits on which forms of assistance may influence an immigration decision. Their lawsuit argues that the policy exceeds DHS’ authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act and is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. They are asking the court to prevent the policy from taking effect and ultimately set it aside.

State and local officials also argue that the effects could extend beyond immigrants whose applications are directly subject to the public-charge test. They expect some mixed-status households to stop using Medicaid, food assistance, housing programs or other services because family members fear that participation could damage a future immigration application. Some children in those households are U.S. citizens and may independently qualify for public programs even when a parent has a different immigration status.

That concern, often described as a “chilling effect,” is central to the governments’ case. The plaintiffs say lower participation in preventive health programs could increase uncompensated emergency medical care, while declining enrollment in nutrition programs could reduce federal money flowing through states and local businesses. Municipal governments say they could also face higher costs for homelessness, emergency assistance, public health programs and community outreach if families avoid regular services until their needs become more serious.

DHS has defended the change on different grounds. In the final rule, the department said the 2022 regulations did not represent the best interpretation of the public-charge provisions and improperly constrained immigration officers. DHS argues that Congress deliberately required an individualized assessment of financial and personal circumstances and that officers should be able to consider relevant means-tested benefits alongside the mandatory factors written into federal law.

The rule applies prospectively to covered applications for admission made on or after September 18 and to covered adjustment-of-status applications postmarked or electronically submitted on or after that date. DHS has said receipt of means-tested public benefits before September 18 will be evaluated consistently with the 2022 framework. The public-charge ground also does not apply uniformly to every immigrant category; federal immigration law contains exemptions and special rules for certain groups.

The litigation revives a legal fight that played out during Trump’s first administration. States, cities and immigration organizations challenged the 2019 public-charge policy in multiple courts, producing injunctions and other rulings before the Biden administration stopped defending that policy and established its own regulatory framework. The latest cases will test whether DHS can now discard that framework and return to a broader interpretation without exceeding the authority Congress gave the agency.

No court had ruled on the merits of the September 14 challenges as of their filing. Because the new rule is scheduled to take effect September 18, the immediate question is whether the plaintiffs can obtain emergency relief before implementation. Unless a court intervenes, immigration officers will begin operating under the revised DHS framework for applications covered by the rule, while the broader dispute over the meaning and lawful scope of the public-charge provision proceeds through federal court.