You are here: Home » US Elections » News
Business Standard

US judge blocks Donald Trump's key immigration rule on public benefits

A federal judge in Chicago struck down a key immigration rule that would deny green cards to immigrants who use food stamps or other public benefits, a blow to Trump on the eve of the election

Topics
Donald Trump | Donald Trump administration | US green card

AP  |  Chicago 

Donald Trump
President Donald Trump

A federal judge in Chicago struck down a key immigration rule on Monday that would deny green cards to immigrants who use food stamps or other public benefits, a blow to the Trump administration on the eve of the election.

In a decision that applies nationwide, US District Judge Gary Feinerman rejected the rule that had taken effect recently after the US Supreme Court reversed a hold on the policy following lawsuits. Among other things, Feinerman said the rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act, which makes federal agencies accountable to the public by outlining a detailed process for enacting regulations.

The decision marked the latest turn in a complex legal battle over the rule that has been among President Donald Trump's most aggressive steps in overhauling the nation's immigration system. The Chicago lawsuit, filed by the Illinois Coalition of Immigrant and Refugee Rights and Cook County, was among numerous legal challenges.

Under the Trump administration policy, immigration officials could deny permanent residency to legal immigrants over their use of food stamps, Medicaid, housing vouchers or other public benefits. applicants had to show they would not be burdens to the country or "public charges". Federal law already required those seeking permanent residency or legal status to prove they would not be a "public charge". But the Trump administration rule included a wider range of programmes that could disqualify them.

Immigrant rights advocates deemed it a "wealth test", while public health experts said it would mean poorer health outcomes and rising costs as low-income migrants chose between needed services and their bid to stay in the country legally. Several cities said such a chilling effect was already evident.

"If these changes are going to be made, they should be made through a deliberative process instead of the way this administration has been doing this," said Fred Tsao, senior policy counsel for ICIRR. "We may or may not get a new administration. If we do, we would like to see a lot of this damage undone and hopefully some legislative changes that will actually benefit immigrants instead of scaring them away."

Officials in Cook County, which runs one of the nation's largest public health systems, argued that when people lack health care coverage, they are less likely to seek preventive care and rely on more expensive emergency care. That also would increase the risk of communicable diseases.

"As we all continue to be impacted by COVID-19, it is vital that no one is fearful of accessing health care. The court's decision to block enforcement of the Public Charge Rule re-opens doors for immigrants to access vital services like health care," Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle said in a statement.

The US Supreme Court decided in a 5-4 vote in January that the rule could take effect, but enforcement was halted by a federal judge in New York because of the coronavirus pandemic. But by September, the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals had reversed that hold and the rule took effect nationwide.

The Trump administration has touted the rule as a way to ensure only those who are self-sufficient come to the US, one of many steps to try to move the country toward a system that focusses on immigrants' skills instead of emphasising the reunification of families.

Officials with the US Department of Homeland Security and US Immigration and Citizenship Services did not return messages seeking comment on Monday.

If there is an appeal, there could be another legal wrinkle in the case.

In June, the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Feinerman's decision blocking enforcement of the rule in Illinois while the merits of the case could be decided. It was a 2-1 decision, with then-Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett dissenting. Barrett was confirmed as a Supreme Court justice last month and would have to recuse herself if the case reached the nation's highest court.

(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Dear Reader,


Business Standard has always strived hard to provide up-to-date information and commentary on developments that are of interest to you and have wider political and economic implications for the country and the world. Your encouragement and constant feedback on how to improve our offering have only made our resolve and commitment to these ideals stronger. Even during these difficult times arising out of Covid-19, we continue to remain committed to keeping you informed and updated with credible news, authoritative views and incisive commentary on topical issues of relevance.
We, however, have a request.

As we battle the economic impact of the pandemic, we need your support even more, so that we can continue to offer you more quality content. Our subscription model has seen an encouraging response from many of you, who have subscribed to our online content. More subscription to our online content can only help us achieve the goals of offering you even better and more relevant content. We believe in free, fair and credible journalism. Your support through more subscriptions can help us practise the journalism to which we are committed.

Support quality journalism and subscribe to Business Standard.

Digital Editor

First Published: Tue, November 03 2020. 07:04 IST