Oregon AG Joins Lawsuit to Block Federal Rule Expanding Public-Benefit Checks for Green-Card Applicants

Oregon — Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield has joined a multistate lawsuit challenging a Trump administration rule that expands the public benefits immigration officials may consider when reviewing certain applications for lawful permanent residency.

The lawsuit was filed Sept. 14 in federal court in New York. It seeks to prevent the Department of Homeland Security rule from taking effect Sept. 18 and asks the court to declare it unlawful and vacate it.

Federal immigration law allows the government to deny admission or permanent residency to some noncitizens deemed likely to become a “public charge,” generally meaning someone expected to depend primarily on government assistance.

A 2022 rule generally limited public-charge consideration to cash assistance programs, Supplemental Security Income and long-term institutional care funded by the government. Noncash programs such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program were excluded from consideration.

The new DHS rule gives immigration officers broader discretion to consider an applicant’s use of government assistance, including noncash benefits such as Medicaid and food assistance. The determination remains part of a broader review that can include an applicant’s age, health, family status, financial resources, education and skills.

The rule does not automatically deny a green card based on the receipt of a single benefit. However, the states argue it does not clearly define which benefits may count, how heavily they should be weighed or how much benefit use could affect an application.

Rayfield said the uncertainty could discourage immigrants and mixed-status families from using programs for which they remain legally eligible.

“The Trump Administration’s plans would make our communities less healthy and less safe,” Rayfield said. “This rule would attack our neighbors and deny them access to critical services that they’re legally allowed to use.”

The lawsuit argues DHS exceeded its authority under federal immigration law and violated the Administrative Procedure Act by adopting the rule without an adequate explanation. Those claims have not been decided by the court.

The states also contend that reduced participation in Medicaid and food assistance could increase uncompensated hospital care, affect school meal funding and reduce federal funding flowing to state-administered programs. They argue the effects could extend to eligible U.S. citizens living in households with noncitizens.

DHS has defended the change as an effort to enforce federal requirements that immigrants be self-sufficient. In a statement reported by Reuters, the department said state officials were concerned about losing federal funding if noncitizens withdrew from public assistance programs.

The lawsuit includes attorneys general from Oregon, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin, along with the District of Columbia and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro.

A separate coalition of cities and counties, led by New York City, filed a related challenge.

The federal government adopted a similar expansion of the public-charge standard in 2019. That policy faced several lawsuits before the Biden administration stopped defending it and replaced it with the narrower 2022 rule. The current lawsuit asks the court to block the 2026 rule before it takes effect.