Immigration and Citizenship

California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

In California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is considering the legality of a Trump Administration rule redefining the term “public charge” for purposes of excluding immigrants from the country.

Case Summary

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides that an individual may be excluded or removed from the United States if he or she is likely to become a “public charge.”  Throughout American history, the term “public charge” has been understood to refer to those who receive cash benefits from the government for subsistence or experience long-term institutionalization.  In August 2019, the Department of Homeland Security promulgated a new rule redefining that term.  Under the Trump Administration’s rule, an individual may be deemed inadmissible to the United States or may be denied an adjustment of immigration status based solely on the acceptance of non-cash public benefits, including assistance through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Section 8 Housing Assistance, Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance, Medicaid (with some exceptions), and certain other forms of subsidized housing.  Several nonprofit organizations, cities, counties, and states challenged this rule in various federal district courts, and in October 2019, the District Court for the Northern District of California concluded that the rule is likely unlawful and issued a preliminary injunction to keep it from going into effect.  In January 2020, CAC filed an amici curiae brief in the Ninth Circuit on behalf of legal historians urging the court to affirm the district court’s judgment.

Our brief makes two main points.  First, we argue that the receipt, or likely receipt, of non-cash benefits has never been, standing alone, sufficient to make an individual a “public charge” subject to exclusion or removal from the country.  Public charge laws, or “poor laws,” in colonial and early America did not uniformly mandate that poor individuals be removed; in fact, they routinely provided financial and other support for impoverished immigrants.  In 1882, Congress passed the first general Immigration Act containing a “public charge” provision, but this law and other federal immigration laws that followed were not designed to significantly limit immigration into the country, and they consistently did not render immigrants excludable or removable based solely on the receipt of non-cash benefits.  Every federal law containing a public charge provision and every agency interpretation of such a law prior to 2019 has continued to rely on the well-established historical definition of “public charge.”  Second, we argue that, given this history, DHS’s new rule redefining “public charge” violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).  Congress necessarily incorporated the longstanding definition of the term “public charge” into the INA’s public charge provision, so DHS’s new rule significantly expanding that term to apply to those who receive only non-cash benefits is not “in accordance with law” and violates the APA.

Case Timeline

More from Immigration and Citizenship

Immigration and Citizenship
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Velasco Lopez v. Decker

In Velasco Lopez v. Decker, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is considering whether the government may incarcerate someone without bail during deportation proceedings without showing that the person would likely abscond or...
Immigration and Citizenship
February 13, 2020

RELEASE: ICE Policy Change Made Illegally Under Matthew Albence Prompts Lawsuit

“This Administration should not be allowed to thumb its nose at the Constitution and laws...
By: Brianne J. Gorod, Rachel Goodman (Counsel for Protect Democracy), Cecelia Friedman Levin (Policy Director of ASISTA Immigration Assistance)
Immigration and Citizenship
January 28, 2020

Dems Urge 9th Circ. To Reject ‘Indefinite’ Detention Of Minors

Law360
(Article behind paywall.)
By: Dayna Zolle, By Jack Queen
Immigration and Citizenship
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

State of New York v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

In State of New York v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is considering the legality of a Trump Administration rule redefining the term “public charge” for...
Immigration and Citizenship
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Make the Road New York v. Cuccinelli

In Make the Road New York v. Cuccinelli, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is considering the legality of a Trump Administration rule redefining the term “public charge” for purposes of excluding...
Immigration and Citizenship
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Flores v. Barr

In Flores v. Barr, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is considering whether new Trump Administration regulations are inconsistent with the Flores Agreement, a settlement agreement governing “the detention, release, and treatment...