DHS wants to tie immigration status to public benefits. California is suing to stop it

California’s 92nd lawsuit against the second Trump administration is over a change to a long-standing rule that will make it harder for immigrants to become permanent residents if they use any public benefits.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta and a coalition of 23 other state attorneys general filed a lawsuit Monday attempting to block a change to the “public charge rule” that is set to go into effect this Friday. Under the rule expansion, immigration agents will have “unprecedented, sweeping new discretion,” the lawsuit claims, to deny permanent residency status to immigrants who use any public benefits, including Medi-Cal and CalFresh.

“No family should have to choose between accessing healthcare and nutrition assistance today — or protecting their pathway to a green card tomorrow,” Bonta said in a statement. “This Administration’s cruelty continues to know no bounds. We’re going to court on behalf of the millions of immigrants who call this state home — and we will fight to get this unlawful rule undone.”

The lawsuit, California’s 92nd in the 86 weeks President Donald Trump has been back in office, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The coalition is arguing the Trump administration broke the law by side-stepping the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which sets clear rules on how government agencies can propose, establish and enforce new rules.

Last November, the Department of Homeland Security released a notice stating it would essentially be expanding the definition of a “public charge,” a term first established in 1882 to allow the government to deny entry to immigrants who could become solely dependent on the government for survival.

DHS only gave 30 days for public comment in response to the proposed rule, as opposed to the standard 60-day comment period. The coalition argues in the lawsuit that the shortened comment period was even more “problematic,” since it fell during a major national holiday.

The coalition also argues DHS is attempting to overhaul the rule’s “well-established meaning.”

The group is asking for the Court to declare the new rule violated the APA and that the defendants, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin and Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Joseph Edlow, overstepped their authority.

If it is not blocked by the Court, the new public charge rule will apply to individuals who submit applications for green cards, visas and United States admission on or after Sept. 18.

Changes to the rule

For decades, the public charge rule has focused on cash assistance and dependence on long-term care.

Under the new rule expansion, DHS agents will have broad authority to deny permanent residency, or green cards, to immigrants who utilize any legally-available public benefits. This includes the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Medicaid, known respectively as CalFresh and Medi-Cal in California. Even free school lunches for children are qualified as a public benefit.

Immigrants who currently or previously have utilized these or other public benefits, for any period of time, could be denied permanent residency.

In the November 2025 notice, DHS argued that immigrants “should be self-sufficient and not depend on public resources.” 

“The Final Rule puts families in the untenable position of choosing between a U.S. citizen child’s access to healthcare, and their noncitizen parent’s ability to remain in the country,” Monday’s lawsuit reads.