1/The case is States of NY, CT and VT and NYC v. DHS & the ct is the Southern District of NY. Plaintiffs challenged the public charge rule which sets new criteria for deciding if someone seeking admission to US or a green card is likely to become a “public charge”.
2/The decision can be found at scribd.com/document/42982…
3/Plaintiffs were seeking a judgment declaring the rule exceeded the government’s authority under the Immigration & Nationality Act (the INA) and was arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion. Also , they asked for the government to be enjoined from implementing the rule.
4/The judge then provided a rundown of what the INA permits. In short, it allows the govt to deny admission or adjustment of status (getting a green card) to any noncitizen who “is likely at any time to become a public charge”. This has been the law since the late 1800s.
5/Congress passed two bills in 1996 that expanded on that by allowing DHS to take into account an applicant’s age, health, family status, assets, resources, financial status, education, and skills.
6/The INS (DHS’ predecessor) issued field guidance in 1999 implementing this change by focusing on receiving govt cash assistance for income maintenance or institutionalization for long-term care at govt expense. And officials should look at the “totality of the circumstances.”
7/DHS issued a proposed rule in October 2018 and then this final rule in August 2019 to redefine “public charge” amend the “totality of the circumstances” language. “Public charge” would be anyone who receives public benefits for more than a year in a 3 year period.
8/Public benefit includes cash benefits and noncash benefits like SNAP, Medicaid and public housing.
9/The rule also created a new framework to assess whether a person is likely to become a public charge. It created a non-exclusive list of factors including credit score, English-language skills, family size, etc. The rule was set to go into effect on October 15th.
10/The judge next sets out the legal standard for a preliminary injunction – that the plaintiff shows its likely to succeed on the merits, will suffer irreparable harm, that the “balance of equities” tips in the plaintiff’s favor and the injunction is in the public interest.
11/1st, the ct found the Plaintiffs showed a likelihood of winning at trial. The Administrative Procedures Act allows a ct to set aside rules exceeding the govt’s authority & “not in accordance with law” or that are “arbitrary, capricious, [or] an abuse of discretion. All shown.
12/The govt argued that the Plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, that the claims aren’t reviewable and that the Plaintiffs fell outside the “zone of interests” covered in the rule.
13/The judge held the Plaintiffs met the requirement of showing they would suffer injury and had standing. The Plaintiffs showed the Medicaid change directly impacts state and city-owned health systems.
14/The judge laughed out the second argument on “ripeness” and reviewability
- “one can conceive of no issue of greater ripeness than that presented here.” The rule is set to take effect in days and Plaintiffs are already preparing.
- “one can conceive of no issue of greater ripeness than that presented here.” The rule is set to take effect in days and Plaintiffs are already preparing.
15/Judge held that the Plaintiffs “plainly fall within the INA’s zone of interests. The interests of immigrants and state and local governments are inextricably intertwined.”
16/The Court then looked at the question of whether the rule exceeds DHS’ statutory authority and is contrary to law. Using the Chevron precedent, the judge first looked to whether the statute is clear and, if not, whether the agency interpretation is reasonable.
17/The Plaintiffs argued that the new def of “public charge” is a drastic deviation from its meaning over130 years. It's been consistently interpreted to mean “an individual who is or is likely to become primarily and permanently dependent on the government for assistance.”
18/In later years, this was broadened by Congress to include becoming dependent on the government for cash assistance or long-term institutionalization (1999 INS rule).
19/Govt’s response is to point to 1880s dictionaries to show the plain meaning of term at the time Congress created the law. Judge: govt admits their definition is new and the term has never been defined in the law or in legal dictionaries. Hence, Plaintiffs win on that argument.
20/The judge also found no evidence that Congress intended the law to be interpreted as the rule sets out. No evidence presented to show they were unhappy. The opposite is true – prior efforts to expand to non-cash benefits failed in Congress. It could have done so in 1996 law.
21/The judge agreed Plaintiffs showed the rule's arbitrary & capricious. The Defendants “fail to provide any reasonable explanation for changing def of “public charge”. The new rule changes the public charge assessment into a benefits issue rather than abt self-subsistence
22/Defendants failed each time they were asked to show a rational basis for equating public charge with receipt of benefits for12 months within a 36 month period. “Defendants failed each and every time.”
23/When asked to explain how the new framework would operate and to provide an example of the “typical person” affected, the Defendants “again stumbled along” unable to explain. Yet the rule is supposed to make the system more predictable and to give concrete guidelines.
24/The judge slammed the govt for misstating the rule. They said the 12 mos/36 mos test was just one factor. Not so. Fail that test and you’re out.
25/The judge also criticized the lack of connection of some factors to the stated reason for the rule. English language proficiency, for example. “Defendants’ suggestion that an individual is likely to become a public charge simply by virtue of her limited English is baseless…”
26/The judge also failed to see how a credit score is relevant. Merely opening your first account in the US will ding your credit score and this does not indicate you’re likely to receive public benefits.
27/"The Rule is simply a new agency policy of exclusion in search of a justification" - your headline quote. 
28/“It is repugnant to the American Dream of the opportunity for prosperity & success through hard work and upward mobility. Immigrants have always come to this country seeking a better life for themselves and their posterity. With or without help, most succeed. “
29/The Plaintiffs also argued the rule discriminates against people with disabilities contrary to the Rehabilitation Act which bars govt agencies from using disability to discriminate under their programs. The rule clearly does this by making disability a negative factor.
30/Judge: The Plaintiffs showed they would suffer irreparable harm. Ppl will have to rely on states & cities when they can’t obtain fed benefits without risking removal. & the Plaintiffs’ immigrant constituents will suffer economic insecurity, health instability & deportation.
31/Competing equities - Judge: preventing the alleged economic & public health harms provides a significant public benefit. There's “no public interest in allowing the Defendants to proceed with an unlawful, arbitrary, & capricious rule that exceeds their statutory authority.”
32/Ct: The national immigration system is not paramount where Defendants failed to show how the current framework is inadequate.
33/The judge held the injunction should be nationwide (unlike the California court decision issued later in the day). “National immigration policies…require uniformity.” A geographically limited injunction would “wreak havoc.” Moving to a new state shouldn't put someone at risk.
That's the end of this case summary. Happy day for anyone who thinks immigration is good for America. Stephen Miller - enjoy your weekend.
