This case is one of several brought nationwide by States, counties, and nonprofit organizations challenging the Trump administration's revised, final public charge rule, which expands the types of programs that the federal government will consider in public charge determinations to now also include previously excluded health, nutrition, and housing programs. District court judges from across the countries granted preliminary injunctions enjoining the government from implementing the public charge rule but after multiple Circuit Courts and the Supreme Court issued stays of these injunctions, the public charge rule was implemented by the government on February 24, 2020.

On August 16, 2019, several healthcare providers and nonprofit organizations serving immigrant communities filed this suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs sued Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its acting secretary in his official capacity, and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and its acting secretary in his official capacity, under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The plaintiffs sought relief to declare the Department of Homeland Security’s Final Rule (the Rule) vacated due to violations of the APA and unconstitutional for violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The plaintiffs also sought to preliminarily and permanently enjoin the Rule from being implemented and enforced. The case was initially assigned to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley but was reassigned to District Judge Haywood S Gilliam, Jr after the plaintiffs declined to proceed before a magistrate judge.

On August 14, 2019, the DHS published a revised, final public charge rule, which defines personal circumstances that affect the ability of individuals and their families to successfully enter the U.S. or acquire legal permanent resident status (i.e., get a green card). The Rule increases the types of programs that the federal government will consider in public charge determinations to now also include previously excluded health, nutrition, and housing programs. The Immigration and Nationality Act provides that if an immigration officer finds that a person seeking a visa is likely to become a public charge, that person is “inadmissible.” The traditional conception of public charge has meant "someone who is primarily dependent on the government to avoid destitution." Under the Rule, an immigrant who uses non-cash benefits such as food stamps or Medicaid (the plaintiffs have alleged that over one-half of U.S. citizens can be expected to use one of these programs at some point in their lifetime), or is deemed likely to receive them in the future, may be found more likely to be a public charge and inadmissible for purposes of a visa or green card application. According to a New York Times article, the new standards would directly affect about 1.2 million applicants annually, primarily immigrants from Africa and Latin America.

The plaintiffs asserted four claims for relief against the defendants. First, the plaintiffs asserted that the Rule's definition of public charge is "contrary to the plain and well- established meaning of that phrase, and to how it has been interpreted and applied since 1882." In support of this claim, the plaintiffs stated that Congress has repeatedly declined to change the longstanding definition of public charge. The plaintiffs also claimed that the Rule is arbitrary and capricious, as it departs from prior law and practice without adequate explanation of the reasons for the departure and consideration for the consequences of the change. Next, the plaintiffs asserted that in enacting the Rule, "defendants acted with improper discriminatory intent and bias against non-white immigrants," in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Lastly, the plaintiffs argued that the Rule is invalid because it was issued by the acting head of the USCIS and that his designation as acting head of USCIS violated the Constitution and federal law.

The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the implementation and enforcement of the Rule to prevent harm to themselves and the immigrant families they represent; "The Rule has and will continue to divert Plaintiffs’ resources, both to address the harmful effects of the Rule and to educate immigrant families about those effects, preventing Plaintiffs from carrying out other aspects of their missions and ensuring that their patients, members, and clients do not forgo critical services to lead healthy, productive, and successful lives."

The case was ordered related to City and County of San Francisco v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (IM-CA-0156) on August 30, 2019. Accordingly, the case was reassigned to the judge presiding over that related case, Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.

On September 4, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction, seeking a nationwide injunction enjoining the defendants from implementing and enforcing the Rule and an order postponing the effective date of the Rule pending judicial review. The plaintiffs argued that a preliminary injunction was appropriate because of their likely success on the merits and that absent an injunction, the Rule will cause plaintiffs to suffer irreparable harm "by interfering with their missions, forcing them to divert resources from providing their core services to handling the effect of the Regulation, and depriving them of revenue." In their opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs have "no basis for turning their abstract policy disagreement with the Executive Branch into a nationwide injunction." The defendants asserted that because the plaintiffs are "municipalities rather than aliens governed by the Rule," they cannot meet jurisdictional requirements. Furthermore, the defendants contended that the Rule is not unlawful, as it "reflects Congress’s delegation of broad authority to the Executive Branch concerning the meaning of 'public charge'" and was "the product of a well-reasoned process that considered the plain text of the statute, legislative intent, statistical evidence, and the substance of hundreds of thousands of comments submitted by the public."

Following a hearing on October 2, 2019, on October 11, 2019, Judge Hamilton issued an order denying the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, but granted preliminary injunctions in two related cases that would enjoin the defendants from implementing and enforcing the Rule in California, Oregon, the District of Columbia, Maine, and Pennsylvania. 408 F. Supp. 3d 1057.

Judge Hamilton denied the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction in the current case, finding that the plaintiffs "have not met their burden to demonstrate that there are serious questions concerning whether they are within the challenged statute’s zone of interest, and certainly they have failed to demonstrate a likelihood that they are able to bring the APA actions underlying their present motion."

Judge Hamilton concluded that a preliminary injunction was appropriate in the two related cases because the plaintiff states and counties were likely to succeed on the merits of their APA claims and would be irreparably harmed absent an injunction. However, Judge Hamilton did not grant the plaintiffs' request to enjoin the implementation of the Rule nationwide. Because the plaintiff states and counties did not establish "the necessity of such relief," the scope of the injunction was limited to California, Oregon, the District of Columbia, Maine, and Pennsylvania.

In City and County of San Francisco, a Ninth Circuit panel issued an order on December 5, 2019, granting the government's emergency motion to stay the preliminary injunction in California, Oregon, the District of Columbia, Maine, and Pennsylvania. In the same order, the Ninth Circuit panel stayed a nationwide injunction that was issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington in State of Washington v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

On December 10, 2019, the plaintiffs appealed the order denying preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit. However, the Ninth Circuit granted plaintiffs' unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal on February 4, 2020. 2020 WL 1170719.

On January 27, 2020, the Supreme Court, State of New York, issued a stay on all nationwide injunctions enjoining the defendants from implementing the Rule. 140 S.Ct. 599. Following this decision, the defendants indicated that the Rule would be implemented and enforced starting February 24, 2020.

As of March 8, 2020, the parties were beginning the discovery process. The case is ongoing.

Aaron Gurley - 03/06/2020


compress summary