Subsequent Trump and Court Action(s)

• October 2, 2019

  DHS publishes final rule correction on 10/2/19 addressing "technical and typographical errors."

  Technical corrections to final rule

  View Document
• January 30, 2020

  USCIS announces public charge rule implementation

  Following the Supreme Court stay of the nationwide preliminary injunction issued by the S.D.N.Y., USCIS announces it will implement the Public Charge rule beginning February 24, 2020. The rule will be implemented everywhere except for in Illinois, where the rule remains enjoined.

  View Document
• February 5, 2020

  USCIS Policy Alert (PA-202-04) Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility

  USCIS issues alert describing guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual concerning the Public Charge rule. Among other things, the guidance defines "public charge," lists factors officers consider in public charge determinations, and lists categories of applicants eligible for waivers.

  View Document
• February 24, 2020

  DHS Implements Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds Final Rule

  On February 24, 2020 DHS implements the Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds Final Rule nationwide, including in Illinois.

  View Document
• September 22, 2020

  USCIS Policy Manual: Part G - Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility

  USCIS Policy Manual section on public charge details adjudication instructions regarding implementation of the rule.

  View Document
• March 9, 2021

  2021.04.26 AILA - Public Charge Issue

  Several U.S. District Courts initially enjoined the public charge rule. Subsequent decisions by two Circuit Courts upheld the initial injunctions (Second and Seventh); one vacated the initial injunction (Fourth); and one Circuit partially enjoined the rule but delayed the effective date of the order until the U.S. Supreme Court determined whether to grant certiorari in two separate cases (Ninth). The Supreme Court dismissed appeals from the Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits on March 9, 2021 based on the parties' joint stipulation to dismiss.

  The cases are:

  • Second Circuit: Injunction upheld 8/4/20 but scope limited to NY, CT. VT. Stayed by SCOTUS 1/27/20. COVID-related injunction stayed by 2nd Cir. 9/11/20. New York v. DHS (S.D.N.Y. 1:19-cv-0777; 2nd Cir. 19-3591). SCOTUS granted cert. on 2/22/21.
    • On March 9, 2021, the parties submitted a joint-stipulation to dismiss the case to SCOTUS.
  • Fourth Circuit: Nationwide injunction vacated 8/5/20. CASA de Maryland v. Trump (D. Maryland 8:19-cv-02715; 4th Cir. 19-2222).
  • Seventh Circuit: Illinois injunction upheld 6/10/20. Rehearing denied 8/12/20. Cook County & ICIRR v. Wolf (N.D. Ill. 1:19-cv-06334; 7th Cir. 19-3169). Stayed by SCOTUS 2/21/20.
    • On March 9, 2021, the parties submitted a joint-stipulation to dismiss the case to SCOTUS.
    • Texas and other states filed a motion to intervene, but on April 26, 2021, SCOTUS denied their application.
  • Ninth Circuit: Nationwide injunction stayed 12/5/19; decision issued 12/2/20, partially reinstating two lower court injunctions, but vacating portion of the Eastern District of Washington's injunction that applied nationwide. The rule was enjoined in plaintiff jurisdictions - 18 states and the District of Columbia (though the mandate had not yet issued). State of California v. DHS (9th Cir. 19-17213). The appeal comes from district court orders in the consolidated cases City and County of San Francisco; County of Santa Clara v. USCIS (N.D. Cal. 19-cv-04717) and State of California v. DHS (N.D. Cal. 19-cv-04975), and the separate case State of Washington v. DHS (E.D. Wash. 19-cv-05210).
    • In mid-March, 11 states sought to intervene in the Ninth Circuit litigation to defend the public charge rule after the Biden administration "effectively abandoned" it. On April 8, 2021, a split panel denied their motion to intervene, functionally ending the litigation.
    • Separately, in La Clinica De La Raza et al. v. Trump et al. (N.D. Cal. 4:19-cv-04980), on 11/25/20, the district court granted the plaintiffs' motion to reconsider HSA/FVRA claims, after previously granting the government's motion to dismiss such claims on 8/7/20.
    • On January 22, 2020, the Ninth Circuit granted DHS’s request to delay the effective date of the December decision until the U.S. Supreme Court determines whether it will grant writs of certiorari in Wolf v. Cook County, No. 20-450, and DHS v. New York, No. 20-449, two separate public charge cases. The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the appeals in both these cases, as well as the above mentioned Ninth Circuit cases, on March 9, 2021 based on the parties' joint stipulation to dismiss.

  **Litigation is listed for informational purposes and is not comprehensive. For the current status of legal challenges, check other sources.**

  View Document
• October 30, 2021

  2021.10.29 Cert decision Arizona v. San Francisco

  On October 30, 2021, the Supreme Court granted cert in Arizona v. San Francisco. The Court will consider the following questions regarding the Trump administration's DHS public charge rule:

  1. Whether States with interests should be permitted to intervene to defend a rule when the United States ceases to defend.
  2. Whether the Rule is contrary to law or arbitrary and capricious.
  3. Alternatively, whether the decision below as to the Rule should be vacated as moot under Munsingwear.
  View Document
• June 15, 2022

  SCOTUS Order Dismissing Writ of Certiorari

  The U.S. Supreme Court, in a per curiam order, dismisses its prior grant of certiorari as improvidently granted.

  View Document
• June 27, 2022

  2022.06.27 Cook County v. Texas (7th Cir. 2022)

  The DHS announced in March 2021 that it would no longer defend the 2019 public charge rule in the case Cook County v. Wolf - Memorandum (N.D. Ill. Nov. 2, 2020). The Plaintiff-Appellees who had initially brought the action also voluntarily dismissed their equal-protection claims with prejudice. On March 15, 2021, DHS promulgated a final rule that effectively removed the 2019 Rule from the Code of Federal Regulations.

  On May 12, 2021, thirteen states moved to intervene in the existing action before the district court, hoping to defend the 2019 rule. The district court denied both the motions to intervene and the requested substantive relief, finding each motion untimely. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's orders, stating that if the States wished to challenge the repeal of the 2019 Rule under the APA, they could do so in fresh legal proceedings.

  **Litigation is listed for informational purposes and is not comprehensive. For the current status of legal challenges, check other sources.**

  View Document
• September 30, 2024

  2024.09.30 Texas v. Mayorkas Memorandum Opinion and Order

  On September 30, 2024, the Southern District of Texas Victoria Division issued a decision granting Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment in the State of Texas' Administrative Procedure Act challenge to the Biden administration's repeal of the 2019 rule and implementation of the 2022 rule. The Court held that the State of Texas lacked standing to bring the challenge because it failed to show that a single additional person was, or would be, granted admission into the country, or the State, under the 2022 rule compared to the 2019 rule.

  **Litigation is listed for informational purposes and is not comprehensive. For the current status of legal challenges, check other sources.**

  View Document