Legal Battle Over Trump Administration Immigration Rule in Illinois and Chicago

Chicago and Illinois have initiated legal actions against a Trump administration rule poised to take effect, which could enable the federal government to restrict green cards for immigrants who receive welfare benefits. This is the latest legal confrontation between the White House and Democratic leaders, Governor JB Pritzker and Mayor Brandon Johnson.

Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul has aligned the state with one of two lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and its director, Joseph Edlow, as defendants. The lawsuit sees Illinois joining a coalition of 22 states and the District of Columbia.

Simultaneously, the city of Chicago is partaking in a separate lawsuit spearheaded by New York City, collaborating with San Francisco, Santa Clara County, Seattle, and King County, Washington. Both cities and states contend that the federal rule in question, published in July, grants DHS excessive discretion to restrict green cards and visas for immigrants involved in Medicaid, food stamps, housing vouchers, or other social programs.

The Trump administration’s proposed rules mark a shift in the long-standing “public charge” provision, enabling the U.S. to deny entry to those likely to rely on government aid. This stands as a reversal of President Joe Biden’s administration’s policy, which limited “public charge” considerations to encompass only cash benefits or long-term care.

Mayor Brandon Johnson stated, “Chicago will not stand by while the federal government forces immigrant families to choose between putting food on the table, taking their children to the doctor, or protecting their ability to remain in this country.” He asserted that the rule is not only cruel but also unlawful, posing threats to the health and safety of Chicago.

DHS spokesperson Chandler Rebel defended the rule change, emphasizing that states and cities contesting the rule are apprehensive about losing federal funds due to potential immigrant withdrawals from welfare programs.

The state’s lawsuit argues that non-citizens and their families face an “impossible task,” balancing their involvement in benefit programs against the risk of hindering their green card procedure. It argues that the rule could negatively impact states as immigrants withdraw from programs like healthcare, food assistance, and school lunches, potentially decreasing federal funds tied to enrollment.

Plaintiffs in the state coalition claim potential losses of $575 million in federal payments related to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program funding and billions associated with Medicaid and children’s health insurance. Raoul described the Trump administration’s rule as targeting immigrants and their families by penalizing them for lawfully accessing public benefits.

The municipal coalition’s lawsuit argues that Biden’s narrower 2022 definition of “public charge” understood the significance of supplemental public benefits in supporting a journey to a better life and deemed the new DHS rule excessively vague.

John Adams described a republic as ‘an Empire of Laws, and not of Men,’” the suit says. “Our nation’s founding is grounded in this core value. With the new public charge ‘rule,’ Defendants eviscerate this principle.

These dual legal challenges arise after the dismissal of the Trump administration’s lawsuit concerning Illinois and Chicago’s sanctuary policies for immigrants last year and subsequent attempts to deploy the National Guard in Illinois were obstructed. New York Attorney General Letitia James and Mayor Zohran Mamdani are leading these legal challenges.