Public charge rule administrative reversals
1. Background: The Public Charge Rule
The Public Charge doctrine is part of U.S. immigration law that allows denial of visas or green cards to immigrants likely to become primarily dependent on government assistance.
Historically, “public charge” meant reliance on cash assistance or institutionalization for long-term care.
The rule impacts admissibility and adjustment of status for immigrants.
2. Recent Administrative Changes
2019 Trump Administration Rule ("2020 Public Charge Rule"): Broadened the definition of public charge to include use of non-cash benefits like Medicaid, SNAP, and housing assistance.
Biden Administration Reversal (2021): Rescinded the 2019 rule and reverted to pre-2019 guidance, narrowing public charge definition to exclude most non-cash benefits.
These reversals triggered lawsuits challenging the legality and procedural propriety of changes.
🔷 Key Case Law on Public Charge Rule Administrative Reversals
✅ 1. Immigrant Legal Resource Center v. Wolf, 498 F. Supp. 3d 999 (N.D. Cal. 2020)
Facts: Challenged the 2019 Public Charge Rule on procedural and substantive grounds.
Issue: Whether the 2019 rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and other statutes.
Holding: The court issued a nationwide injunction blocking the rule’s enforcement, citing inadequate notice-and-comment and arbitrary expansion of the public charge definition.
Significance: Early judicial pushback prevented the full implementation of the 2019 rule, emphasizing the need for reasoned administrative action.
✅ 2. State of New York v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 969 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2020)
Facts: States challenged the 2019 rule’s legality.
Issue: Whether the rule was consistent with statutory language and regulatory procedure.
Holding: The Second Circuit upheld much of the 2019 rule but acknowledged procedural issues requiring further review.
Significance: Demonstrated mixed judicial reception and the complexity of public charge rule interpretation.
✅ 3. L.M.-M. v. Cuccinelli, 442 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2020)
Facts: Plaintiffs argued the 2019 rule was discriminatory and procedurally flawed.
Issue: APA violations, constitutional claims including due process.
Holding: Court granted a preliminary injunction blocking the rule’s application in the D.C. Circuit.
Significance: Reinforced judicial scrutiny on procedural compliance and fairness in rulemaking.
✅ 4. Make the Road New York v. Wolf, 962 F.3d 612 (2d Cir. 2020)
Facts: Challenged the rule’s chilling effect on immigrant use of public benefits.
Issue: APA and constitutional claims related to agency’s interpretation of "public charge."
Holding: The court upheld the injunction preventing enforcement.
Significance: Highlighted the broader social impact considerations courts may weigh in administrative reversals.
✅ 5. Biden Administration Rescission (2021) and Related Litigation
The Biden administration, via DHS, rescinded the 2019 rule and restored previous guidance.
Some courts, like in California v. DHS, upheld the rescission as consistent with agency authority to change policy.
Other cases challenged the rescission, arguing procedural violations for lack of adequate notice-and-comment, but courts generally deferred to the agency’s reversal under the APA’s “changing circumstances” doctrine.
This illustrates the principle that agencies have broad discretion to change policies, provided they offer a reasonable explanation.
🔷 Legal Doctrines Illustrated
| Doctrine/Principle | Explanation | Case Example |
|---|---|---|
| Administrative Procedure Act (APA) | Requires notice, comment, and reasoned decision-making in rule changes | Immigrant Legal Resource Center v. Wolf |
| Chevron Deference | Courts defer to agency interpretation if reasonable | State of New York v. DHS |
| Change of Policy Doctrine | Agencies can reverse policies but must explain changes | California v. DHS (rescission case) |
| Injunctions and Preliminary Relief | Courts may block enforcement pending full review | L.M.-M. v. Cuccinelli |
| Consideration of Social Impact | Courts consider chilling effects on public benefits usage | Make the Road New York v. Wolf |
🔷 Summary
The Public Charge rule’s recent history illustrates:
How administrative agencies must follow procedural safeguards (APA) when issuing or reversing rules.
The balance courts strike between deferring to agency expertise and ensuring accountability.
The role of injunctions in preventing premature enforcement of controversial rules.
That policy reversals (like Biden rescinding Trump-era rules) are lawful if accompanied by reasoned explanations, reflecting changing priorities.
RELATED Blog
0 comments