Maryland Attorney General Joins Lawsuit to Block Federal Public Charge Rule

Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown has joined a coalition of 21 other states and the District of Columbia in filing a lawsuit to halt a new federal public charge rule. The rule, issued by the Trump administration and slated to take effect on September 18, would grant immigration officials expanded authority to penalize immigrants for utilizing public benefits, potentially impacting their path to permanent residency. The coalition is seeking a declaration from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that the rule is unlawful.

The lawsuit challenges the Department of Homeland Security’s new policy, which significantly broadens the scope of public benefits that immigration officials can consider when determining an individual’s admissibility. Previously, public charge determinations were primarily limited to cash assistance for income maintenance and long-term institutionalization at government expense. However, the revised rule allows immigration officers to take into account nearly any means-tested public benefit, regardless of how long it was used. Furthermore, the rule permits consideration of benefits lawfully used by family members who are U.S. citizens and for whom the applicant has a legal obligation to provide support. The lack of clear limitations on which benefits or the extent of their use could create uncertainty for families, leaving them to fear that accessing essential aid might jeopardize their immigration status.

The coalition argues that the federal government itself has acknowledged the negative consequences of this rule, anticipating that immigrant families will disenroll from or forgo benefits out of fear. This disenrollment is projected to have substantial financial repercussions for states. The Department of Homeland Security estimates that a reduction in Medicaid and CHIP enrollment could lead to approximately $4.05 billion in lost federal transfer payments to states annually. Similarly, a decrease in SNAP participation could result in an annual loss of about $1.02 billion in federal SNAP transfer payments.

Beyond direct financial losses, the lawsuit highlights the broader societal impacts of increased fear and confusion surrounding public benefits. When individuals lose access to health coverage, they may delay necessary medical care, leading to increased reliance on emergency rooms. This shift can strain safety-net hospitals and community health centers, potentially raising healthcare costs for all residents. Schools also face potential disruptions, with a risk of losing automatic certification for free and reduced-price meal programs if SNAP and Medicaid enrollment drops below certain thresholds. Such a decline could impact meal access for eligible students, irrespective of their income or immigration status. Additionally, federal Title I education funding could be reduced if student benefit enrollment decreases, posing a significant loss for educational institutions. A reduction in SNAP participation can also negatively affect local economies, as businesses that rely on SNAP recipients’ spending may experience decreased revenue. The states and local governments that administer these public programs will also incur direct costs associated with implementing new communication strategies, training staff, and updating information technology systems to manage the anticipated disruption, in addition to managing the strain of residents entering and exiting programs due to fear.

The attorneys general contend that the new public charge rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act. They assert that the rule is arbitrary and capricious, exceeds the statutory authority granted to the Department of Homeland Security, and deviates from the long-standing interpretation of the public charge provision as established by Congress. The coalition is seeking a federal court order to declare the rule unlawful and to vacate it, thereby protecting states and their residents from its potentially harmful effects. The lawsuit was filed alongside a coalition of cities and counties, with the City of New York leading that effort.

Article by Mel Anara, based upon information from the Maryland Attorney General’s Office.

Video Spotlight