The Department of Homeland Security's sweeping new public charge rule went into effect on September 18, 2026, fundamentally reshaping how immigration officers evaluate green card applicants — and immediately drawing coordinated legal challenges from nearly half the states in the nation.
A coalition of 22 states and the District of Columbia filed a federal lawsuit seeking to stop the Trump administration's new public charge rule before it took effect.
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
A separate lawsuit was also filed by a coalition of cities led by New York City.
Despite the legal barrage,
as of September 19, 2026, the dockets show no restraining order, preliminary injunction, or stay — the rule applies to every covered filing.
What Changed on September 18
DHS rescinded the 2022 public charge ground of inadmissibility regulations.
The expanded public charge policy gives USCIS officers broad discretion to determine whether an applicant is likely to become financially dependent on the government and is expected to expand the types of government benefits and factors to be considered.
The 2022 rule had narrowly defined "public charge" as primary dependence on cash assistance or long-term institutionalization, and explicitly excluded non-cash benefits like Medicaid and SNAP from the analysis.
That narrow framework is now gone.
Under the new rule, immigration officers must consider at least five factors when deciding whether an applicant is likely to become a public charge: the applicant's age; health; family status; assets, resources, and financial condition; and education and skills.
For benefits received on or after September 18, 2026, officers may consider an applicant's application for, approval for, or receipt of any means-tested public benefit, including programs such as Medicaid and SNAP.
The practical impact is significant.
An officer can now count food stamps as part of the decision, even though a parent works and pays most of their own expenses.
More Requests for Evidence, Notices of Intent to Deny, and additional interview questions on public charge are likely, along with potential processing delays.
The Lawsuits: States and Cities Unite
On September 14, New York Attorney General Letitia James led 21 other states and the District of Columbia in filing a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, and several other states joined the challenge.
Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro also joined the legal challenge.
The coalition argues that the new rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act because it is arbitrary and capricious, exceeds DHS's statutory authority, and departs from the longstanding meaning of the public charge provision established by Congress.
James did not mince words.
"Hardworking families should not be forced to go without the support they need because they fear asking for assistance will get them deported," James said in a statement.
In a separate action,
Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani announced that New York City, alongside the City of Chicago, the City and County of San Francisco, the County of Santa Clara, the City of Seattle, King County, Washington and the Public Rights Project, filed a lawsuit challenging the federal government's new public charge rule.
The cities' complaint challenges both the rule and the August 18 Policy Alert, arguing among other things that the guidance should have gone through notice and comment.
A third lawsuit was also filed.
On September 17, 2026, Make the Road New York, the New York Legal Assistance Group, the Association to Benefit Children, and African Communities Together filed their own complaint
,
the only one whose prayer for relief asks the court to stay the rule and guidance under 5 USC 705 and to preliminarily enjoin them.
The judge has set an initial conference for October 9, 2026, and the docket shows the government's answer due November 16, 2026.
The "Chilling Effect": 950,000 Could Drop Benefits
Perhaps the most striking aspect of the new rule is DHS's own projection of its collateral damage.
DHS estimates approximately 588,000 applicants annually will be subject to the expanded public charge review, but the agency's own analysis projects roughly 950,000 individuals will disenroll from federal benefit programs as a result of the rule's chilling effect — meaning they will stop using Medicaid, SNAP, CHIP, and WIC not because they are required to, but because they fear the consequences.
DHS estimates that over ten years, these changes will result in $130 billion in reduced federal and state expenditures on benefit programs, driven by reduced enrollment. For example, 626,000 individuals could disenroll from Medicaid or forgo enrollment in Medicaid annually.
Independent estimates suggest the impact could be far larger.
If the final rule leads to disenrollment rates ranging from 10% to 30%, between 1.4 million to 4.1 million Medicaid and CHIP enrollees who live in a household with at least one noncitizen could disenroll, including about 560,000 to about 1.7 million citizen children.
What the Administration Says
"The Trump administration is upholding the rule of law and protecting American taxpayers from subsidizing aliens who may become dependent on public benefits," USCIS spokesperson Zach Kahler said when the final rule was announced.
DHS says the rescission restores broader discretion for officers to evaluate all pertinent facts and aligns with long-standing policy that aliens in the United States should be self-reliant.
What Immigrants Need to Know Now
The filing date matters.
Anyone with a pending green card application that was filed with USCIS before September 18, 2026, will be decided based on the prior, more favorable policy from 2022.
Receipt of means-tested public benefits before September 18, 2026 will be considered consistently with the 2022 Final Rule.
New form required.
USCIS is releasing a new version of Form I-485. Starting September 18, the old version of the form will no longer be accepted.
Benefits used by U.S. citizen children are distinct.
The public charge test looks at the applicant's own use of benefits — it does not look at benefits used by a U.S. citizen child in the same home.
However,
USCIS officials have said that benefits received by an applicant's family members will not be treated as the applicant's own, though officers may still consider them when assessing the applicant's finances — for instance, if they suggest the applicant cannot financially support the household.
Do not panic-withdraw. Immigration advocates stress that dropping benefits prematurely — especially for U.S. citizen children — can cause real harm without necessarily helping an immigration case.
Receipt of public benefits alone does not automatically result in a public charge finding; officers must evaluate the applicant's circumstances as a whole.
Not everyone is affected. The public charge ground of inadmissibility does not apply to all immigration categories.
Some people and immigration categories are exempt from the public charge ground altogether
, including asylum seekers, refugees, T and U visa holders, VAWA self-petitioners, and certain other humanitarian categories.
Historical Echoes
This is not the first time a Trump-era public charge rule has faced judicial challenge.
When the Trump administration introduced a similar rule in 2020, Attorney General James successfully led a coalition in suing to block the measure, a ruling that was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The Biden administration later replaced that rule with the narrower 2022 standard that has now been rescinded.
Looking Ahead
With three lawsuits pending and no injunction yet issued, green card applicants face a period of significant uncertainty.
Because so much depends on guidance USCIS has not yet issued, a fair amount of uncertainty will remain even after the rule takes effect.
Anyone with a pending or upcoming green card application should check in with counsel close to their filing date rather than relying on older assumptions about how public charge works.
The litigation is moving quickly, and a court ruling could alter the landscape at any time. Applicants and their families should monitor official USCIS updates and consult with a qualified immigration attorney before making any decisions about benefits enrollment or application timing.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Individuals with questions about how the public charge rule affects their specific situation should consult with a licensed immigration attorney.