09/14/2026
⚠️ Press Release from the Washington State Attorney Generals Office ⚠️
Attorney General Nick Brown today joined 21 other states and the District of Columbia in suing to halt the new public charge rule from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which would allow immigration officials to punish immigrants for lawful use of public benefits.
The new policy would give immigration officers broad discretion to deny green cards based on use of public benefits. The coalition is asking the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to declare this rule unlawful.
“This new rule is designed to intimidate and harm immigrant families,” Brown said. “But DHS cannot legally withhold permanent residency from people who receive benefits to which they’re lawfully entitled, like food assistance, even for a short period of time.”
A "public charge" means a person who is likely to become primarily dependent on the government for long-term subsistence. In 2022, the federal government issued a rule limiting the focus of public charge determinations to whether applicants for admission were likely to depend on publicly funded cash assistance or need long-term institutionalization at government expense. The new DHS rule taking effect Sept. 18 would let immigration officers count nearly any means-tested public benefit, used for any length of time, against an applicant. The rule also allows immigration officers to consider some benefits legally used by family members whom the applicant is legally obligated to support, even if the family member is a U.S. citizen. There is no clear limit on which benefits or how much use count against an applicant, leaving families to guess which forms of assistance might put their immigration status at risk.
The administration has acknowledged the new rule will likely cause fear and confusion among immigrant families and lead them to disenroll from benefits to which they are legally entitled, the coalition argues in its complaint. DHS estimates that disenrollment or forgone enrollment resulting from the new rule could reduce federal Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program transfer payments to the states by more than $4 billion annually and federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) transfer payments by more than $1 billion annually.
The lawsuit argues that the disruption will not stop with the families who disenroll from public benefits. When people lose access to health coverage, they delay care and turn to emergency rooms instead, straining safety-net hospitals and community health centers and raising costs for everyone. Schools risk losing automatic certification for free and reduced-price meal programs when SNAP and Medicaid enrollment drops below required thresholds, cutting off meals for eligible students regardless of income or immigration status. Federal Title I education funding is also likely to fall if student enrollment in benefits decreases and would be a devastating loss for schools. Reduced participation in SNAP can also harm local economies, draining money from the grocery stores and local businesses that depend on SNAP recipients’ business.
The coalition notes that the states and local governments that administer these programs will bear direct costs, from new communications to staff training to information technology changes needed to manage the disruption. This is on top of the added strain of residents cycling on and off programs out of fear.
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.
The Attorney Generals are asking a federal judge to declare the 2026 public charge rule unlawful and vacate it, protecting states and their residents from its unlawful harms.
