On August 14, 2019, 14 states, led by Washington, California, and New York, filed this suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. The Plaintiff States sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its acting secretary, in his official capacity, and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services and its acting secretary, in his official capacity, under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Plaintiff States sought relief to declare the Department of Homeland Security’s Final Rule (the Public Charge Rule or the Rule) vacated due to violations of the APA and unconstitutional due to violations of the Equal Protection Clause. The Plaintiff States also sought to preliminarily and permanently enjoin the Rule from being enforced. The case was assigned to District Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson.

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 final 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 Plaintiff States alleged that the Rule redefined the term “public charge” in a manner contrary to congressional intent and agency interpretation. Since colonial times the term public charge was used to refer to someone permanently and primarily dependent on the government for subsistence. The Plaintiff States' complaint asserted that “the Rule departs from this original meaning by redefining a public charge as a noncitizen who receives common forms of federal and state public assistance, even in small amounts and for a short period of time.” The complaint further states that even though, on average, over 20% of the U.S. population participates in these programs each month, under the Rule, participation in these programs by legally present immigrants could block their path to citizenship. The Plaintiff States alleged that the Rule will deter lawfully present, legally eligible immigrants from participating in these programs, resulting in social and economic costs for the plaintiff states.

On September 9, 2019, the Plaintiff States filed a Motion for Stay Pending Judicial Review or Preliminary Injunction and claimed that they were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims made in the complaint. The Rule, unless prohibited, was set to go into effect on October 15, 2019. The Plaintiff States asserted that the Rule should not take effect while the legal action was still pending.

On September 20, 2019, the Defendants filed an opposition to the Plaintiff States’ motion, challenging the Plaintiff States’ standing to bring this action. The Defendants also contended the Rule was long overdue after Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act in 1996 to “expand the public charge ground of inadmissibility.” The Defendants further asserted that the Rule simply defined the term “public charge” to reflect Congress’ legislated policy and its delegation of broad authority to the Executive Branch to set the definition. Lastly, they argued the Rule was a product of a “well-reasoned process” and was of limited scope.

On October 11, 2019, District Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson granted the Plaintiff States’ Motion for Stay Pending Judicial Review and Preliminary Injunction, finding that the Plaintiff States “have shown that the status quo should be preserved pending resolution of this litigation.” Judge Peterson held that the Plaintiff States demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their first cause of action under the APA because evidence showed that Congress already rejected key components of the Rule and that the DHS overstepped its authority. Judge Peterson also held that the Plaintiff States demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the DHS “acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in formulating the Public Charge Rule.” Furthermore, Judge Peterson held that there was a significant threat of irreparable injury to the Plaintiff States and their residents if the Rule was to take effect as scheduled. Lastly, Judge Peterson found that “the balance of equities tips sharply in favor of the Plaintiff States” and that the threat of harm to the Defendants was not enough to outweigh these other factors. Thus, the implementation of the Public Charge Rule was stayed in its entirety, pending entry of a final judgment in the suit, and Defendants were enjoined from implementing or enforcing the Rule.

On October 30, 2019, the Defendants appealed the Order Granting Stay and Preliminary Injunction. The appeal is pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Aaron Gurley - 11/17/2019


compress summary