Judge Gary Feinerman of the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Monday struck down an immigration rule enacted by the Trump administration, holding it violating the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). \Feinerman granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and vacated the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) final rule.
The rule addressed section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which sets out inadmissibility grounds based on public charge. The new rule had expanded the definition of a public charge to include: “an alien who has received one or more public benefits, as defined in the rule, for more than 12 months within any 36-month period.” The new public charge mandate affected a variety of different immigration categories, including any initial applicants for admission, those seeking an adjustment of status, and many other nonimmigrant categories when seeking an extension or change of status. The definition of “public benefits” was also expanded to include: Supplemental Security Income; Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; Any federal, state, local, or tribal cash benefit programs for income maintenance; Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); Section 8 Housing Assistance & Project-Based Rental Assistance; Public Housing; and Federally funded Medicaid.
The rule also barred admission for any “alien who is likely at any time to become a public charge.” The standard for such a distinction was simply that they are “more likely than not” to become a public charge at any time in the future. This standard was highly controversial given its subjective nature and the wide-sweeping discretion it granted immigration officials in denying applications. In practice, the new requirements barred many people from improving or even establishing an immigration status. This issue was further exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and growing unemployment across the country, forcing many immigrants to choose between seeking government aid and protecting their immigration status.
Feinerman held that the final rule was both substantively and procedurally defective under the APA. He also found that both the DHS’s attempt to redefine “public charge” in the rule and the new rule itself was “likely to fail the ‘arbitrary and capricious’ standard” due to “numerous unexplained serious flaws.” Including the reality that the DHS failed to consider state and local government reliance interests adequately and that they “did not address the significant, predictable collateral consequences of the rule.”
It is currently unclear if the DHS will appeal the ruling. The future of the rule and that of the entire US immigration system likely hangs on the outcome of the 2020 election.
