Attorney General Bonta Slams Cruel New Public Charge Rule that Threatens Legal Immigration Status

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Bonta today co-led a coalition of 20 attorneys general in strenuously opposing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) proposed cancellation of the Biden-era "public charge” rule, which prohibited immigration officials from considering the use of non-cash public benefits, such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits and Medicaid, when determining whether a noncitizen can obtain or keep legal immigration status. The proposed rule, if finalized, would cause uncertainty in the immigration system and discourage eligible immigrants and their families from accessing beneficial health, nutrition, and housing programs. In the comment letter, the attorneys general request withdrawal of the proposed rule, arguing that it is a departure from Congress’s well-established interpretation of “public charge” and will cause massive harms to states and their residents.

“No family should have to choose between accessing healthcare, getting help putting food on the table, or protecting their immigration status,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Trump’s latest attempt to redefine who is a ‘public charge’ is not only cruel — it’s also a departure from more than a century of precedent. Congress never intended or authorized immigration officers to have unchecked discretion to deny someone legal status for using government programs. California successfully fought Trump’s illegal public charge rule during his first term. We will continue to stand with immigrants and their families and support their access to public programs that promote health, safety, and economic stability for individuals and the public.” 

Longstanding guidance by the federal government has defined a “public charge” as a person who is primarily and permanently dependent on either public cash assistance for income maintenance or institutional long-term care at the government’s expense. Under the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act, a noncitizen who is likely to become a public charge is generally inadmissible to the United States and ineligible to become a lawful permanent resident. In 2019, the Trump Administration sought to radically expand the definition of a public charge to include the use of healthcare through federally-funded Medicaid, nutrition and food support through the SNAP, and Section 8 housing assistance. This rule was successfully challenged by California and other states and later reversed by the Biden Administration. 

This time around, Trump's DHS is seeking to eviscerate existing regulations by rescinding the Biden-era “public charge” rule, while calling its unlawful 2019 rule “overly restrictive," creating uncertainty in the immigration system and inviting arbitrary enforcement. In the proposal, DHS suggests that it intends to give immigration officials an unrestricted amount of discretion to consider a range of factors in making public charge determinations, allowing immigration officers to consider receipt of non-cash benefits such as food stamps, Medicaid, and Section 8 housing assistance as one of the many factors in determining whether an individual can be disqualified from receiving a green card or other legal immigration status as a "public charge." 

This would lead many individuals to avoid benefits they, or their families, are eligible for if they fear receiving these benefits might jeopardize their lawful immigration status. Without access to preventative health coverage, many of these noncitizens would only access care in the most dire, costly, and emergency situations. The rule would also harm U.S. children in mixed-status families, who rely on the health, nutrition, and stability provided by benefits received by their noncitizen parents or caregivers. While the proposed rule would cause disenrollment, the underlying medical, housing, and nutrition needs will not disappear; they will simply reappear as uncompensated care and emergency assistance that state and local governments absorb. 

In the comment letter, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that the proposed rule represents a departure from Congress and the courts’ interpretations of “public charge,” is contrary to law, is the result of an arbitrary and capricious change in longstanding policy, and should be withdrawn. 

Attorney General Bonta co-led the letter with New York Attorney General Letitia James, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison. They were joined by the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai’i, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.