Attorney General Ellison sues to block illegal Trump attempt to punish immigrants
Joins 22 states and D.C. in lawsuit against new public charge rule that allows DHS to deny green cards to immigrants who legally use public benefits
Rule scheduled to take effect this week will hurt health care, schools, and local economies for all Americans, cost state and local taxpayers more
September 14, 2026 (SAINT PAUL) — Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison today joined 22 states and the District of Columbia in suing to halt the Trump administration's new public charge rule, which would allow immigration officials to punish immigrants for legally using public benefits. The new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy would give immigration officers broad discretion to deny green cards based on use of public benefits. Attorney General Ellison and the coalition are asking the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to declare this rule unlawful.
“This rule is part of Trump’s virulent and illegal agenda to terrorize all immigrants, including those with legal status and their U.S. citizen children. And it doesn’t stop there: it’s designed to punish entire communities and states that welcome immigrants, along with the U.S. citizens that live in them,” Attorney General Ellison said. “The Trump Administration tried to implement this rule in 2019 and my fellow attorneys general and I blocked them then. No one is surprised they’re trying it again, so once again, we’re taking them to court to stop them from implementing this illegal rule.”
A "public charge" means a person who is likely to become primarily dependent on the government for long-term subsistence. In 2022, the federal government issued a rule limiting public charge determinations to cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense. The Trump administration’s new rule, scheduled to take effect on September 18, would let immigration officers count nearly any means-tested public benefit, used for any length of time, against an applicant. The rule also allows immigration officers to consider some benefits legally used by family members whom the applicant is legally obligated to support, even if the family member is a U.S. citizen. There is no clear limit on which benefits or how much use of them count against an applicant, leaving families to guess which forms of assistance might put their immigration status at risk.
In the lawsuit, Attorney General Ellison and the coalition argue that the disruption will not be limited to the families who disenroll from public benefits and will have broad negative consequences for all Americans. When people lose access to health coverage, they delay care and turn to emergency rooms instead, straining safety-net hospitals and community health centers, and raising costs for everyone. Schools risk losing automatic certification for free and reduced-price meal programs when SNAP and Medicaid enrollment drops below required thresholds, cutting off meals for eligible students regardless of income or immigration status. Federal Title I education funding is also likely to fall if student enrollment in benefits decreases, which would be a devastating loss for schools. Reduced participation in SNAP can also harm local economies, draining money from the grocery stores and local businesses that depend on SNAP recipients’ business.
The Trump Administration has acknowledged that the fear and confusion the new rule would cause immigrant families to disenroll from benefits to which they are legally entitled. DHS estimates that disenrollment or forgone enrollment resulting from the new rule could reduce federal Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program transfer payments to the states by approximately $4.05 billion annually and federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance program transfer payments by approximately $1.02 billion annually. States and local governments that administer these programs will bear direct costs to manage the disruption, on top of the added strain of residents cycling on and off programs out of fear.
Attorney General Ellison and the coalition argue that the new rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act because it is arbitrary and capricious, exceeds DHS’s statutory authority, and departs from the longstanding meaning of the public charge provision established by Congress. The attorneys general are asking a federal judge to declare the 2026 public charge rule unlawful and vacate it, protecting states and their residents from its unlawful harms.
Attorney General Ellison sued to block a similar Trump Administration rule in 2019 and won a preliminary injunction blocking it.
Joining Attorney General Ellison in filing this lawsuit, which is led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, and Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, are the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia, and the governor of Pennsylvania. The lawsuit was filed alongside a coalition of cities and counties led by the City of New York.
