Oregon AG Rayfield: Challenges Trump Public Charge Rule in Court

• Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, alongside 21 other states and Washington, D.C., has filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's 2026 public charge rule.
• The rule would allow immigration officers to deny green cards to individuals or their family members who have used legally permitted public benefits like Medicaid or food assistance.
• Plaintiffs argue the rule's expanded definition of 'public charge' lacks a reasonable basis, exceeds DHS authority, and abandons congressional intent.
• The lawsuit predicts the rule will make communities less healthy and safe, increase healthcare costs, and negatively impact schools and local businesses.
• Oregon previously successfully challenged a similar Trump administration public charge policy in 2019, with the win upheld by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

The new rule dramatically broadens these criteria, allowing immigration officers to consider almost any public benefit used by an applicant, regardless of the duration of use, when evaluating green card applications.

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield has initiated legal proceedings against a public charge rule originating from the Trump administration, which he asserts would penalize immigrants for utilizing public benefits they are legally entitled to receive. This action, targeting a policy that could lead to the denial of green cards for individuals who have accessed services like Medicaid and food assistance, underscores a significant legal and humanitarian concern.

Attorney General Rayfield emphasized that the rule would undermine community health and safety by attacking vulnerable populations and restricting their access to essential services. The lawsuit seeks a federal court declaration that the 2026 public charge rule is unlawful and requests its vacatur, aiming to safeguard Oregonians and others from its potential adverse effects.

This legal challenge is not a solitary effort; Attorney General Rayfield is joined by the attorneys general from 21 other states and Washington, D.C. The Governor of Pennsylvania also supports the action, alongside a coalition of cities and counties, notably led by the City of New York, highlighting the broad opposition to the contested policy.

At the heart of the dispute is the Trump administration immigration public charge rule's significantly expanded definition of who qualifies as a 'public charge'—a governmental term for individuals likely to require long-term public support. Previously, under a 2022 rule, this designation was largely limited to those dependent on cash assistance or residing in government-funded nursing homes for extended periods.

The new rule dramatically broadens these criteria, allowing immigration officers to consider almost any public benefit used by an applicant, regardless of the duration of use, when evaluating green card applications. Furthermore, the policy permits officers to hold against an applicant the use of benefits by a family member they support, even if that family member is a U.S. citizen. This lack of clear guidelines on which benefits count or what level of use is deemed excessive leaves families in a state of uncertainty regarding their immigration status.

This expansion represents a critical shift from prior interpretations, potentially creating a chilling effect where eligible individuals forgo necessary assistance out of fear for their immigration prospects. The lawsuit contends that this redefinition goes beyond the Department of Homeland Security's authority and deviates from the meaning of 'public charge' established by Congress decades ago.

The federal government's own projections anticipate that families will cease using benefits they are entitled to, leading to communities that are sicker, hungrier, and less safe. This chilling effect extends beyond individual immigrants, posing broader societal and economic challenges. When individuals lose health coverage, they often delay seeking medical care until it becomes an emergency, subsequently increasing costs for hospitals and clinics that serve the entire population.

Moreover, the proposed rule could severely impact educational institutions. A significant drop in enrollment for Medicaid and food assistance programs might lead to schools losing federal funding and their ability to offer free and reduced-price meal programs for eligible children, irrespective of a student's immigration status. Local economies would also suffer, as grocery stores and other businesses reliant on food assistance dollars would experience reduced revenue.

State and local governments face additional burdens, including the costs associated with new outreach initiatives, staff training, and technological upgrades required to manage the fallout. These expenses would be compounded by the financial strain of individuals cycling on and off essential programs due to fear, underscoring the far-reaching implications of the DHS public charge rule challenge.

The multi-state public charge lawsuit asserts that the 2026 public charge rule is illegal on several grounds. Plaintiffs argue that the rule was adopted without a reasonable basis, that it exceeds the statutory authority granted to the Department of Homeland Security, and that it fundamentally abandons the long-standing congressional definition of 'public charge.'

Oregon has a history of challenging similar policies; the state successfully sued to block a comparable Trump administration attempt in 2019, a victory that was subsequently upheld by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. This prior legal success provides a significant precedent for the current challenge. The states joining Oregon in this legal action include California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Immigration lawyers should advise clients on the potential impact of the proposed expanded 'public charge' rule on green card applications, particularly regarding the use of public benefits, and monitor the outcome of this multi-state lawsuit challenging its legality. Compliance officers in social services or healthcare should be aware of the potential chilling effect on benefit usage within immigrant communities.

Source: Original reporting via Oregon Department of Justice