Department of Homeland Security v. New York

This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions. (November 2023)

The Department of Homeland Security v. New York was a United States Supreme Court case that challenged whether the U.S. Department of Homeland Security violated the Administrative Procedure Act upon its expansion of who qualifies as a public charge.

In 2019, under the Trump Administration, the Department of Homeland Security issued a final rule that would expand the definition of who qualifies as a public charge, which would make it more difficult for people to enter the United States, or for people to obtain green cards.^[1]

The concept of a "public charge" first appeared in the Immigration Act of 1882, stating that the government had the right to prevent anyone "unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge" from entering the country. The public charge appeared once again in the Immigration Act of 1891 with another provision, stating that: "All idiots, insane persons, paupers or persons likely to become a public charge, persons suffering from a loathsome or a dangerous contagious disease, persons who have been convicted of a felony or other infamous crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, polygamists…" would also not be allowed into the country.^[2]

Though there have been other provisions, among the most notable to date has been the public charge rule that occurred in the 1999 Interim Field Guidance, which defined a public charge as someone who is "primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or institutionalization for long-term care at government expense."^[3]

This 1999 rule sought to be changed with the 2019 Final Rule, which redefined the term public charge to mean "an alien who receives one or more public benefits, for more than 12 months in the aggregate within any 36-month period (such that, for instance, receipt of two benefits in one month counts as two months)."  It also defined the term public benefit to include cash assistance for income maintenance (other than tax credits), SNAP, most forms of Medicaid, Section 8 Housing Assistance under the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program, Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance, and certain other forms of subsidized housing. The new rule also included the likelihood of the future use of public benefits, so this took into account age, health, family size, skills, and financial status. Other heavily weighted factors included: not being a full-time student or employed and having been previously found inadmissible or deportable on public charge grounds.^[1]

Upon the passing of this rule, New York, Connecticut, Vermont, New York City, and five nonprofit organizations filed a lawsuit against DHS, claiming that the expansion of the public charge rule is a violation of the arbitrary-or-capricious test derived from the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).^[4]

The Administrative Procedure Act was passed on June 11, 1946, and regulates the process by which administrative agencies of the United States propose and establish regulations. The arbitrary-or-capricious test allows courts reviewing agency decisions to invalidate any law that may be "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law."^[5]

The case appeared before the 2nd Circuit, and on August 4, 2020, the 2nd Circuit Court agreed that DHS failed the arbitrary-or-capricious test. The court opinion stated that "The fact that an alien has been on welfare does not, by itself, establish that he or she is likely to become a public charge" (New York v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 969 F.3d 42, 75 (2d Cir. 2020)^[6]

DHS appealed the ruling from the 2nd District Court to the Supreme Court on October 7, 2020, asserting that the rule is within its legal authority. On February 21, 2021, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.^[4]

The case before the Supreme Court presented two questions:

1. Whether entities that are not subject to the public-charge ground of inadmissibility contained in 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(A), and which seek to expand benefits usage by aliens who are potentially subject to that provision, are proper parties to challenge the final rule.^[4]

2. Whether the final rule is likely contrary to law or arbitrary and capricious.^[4]

On March 9, 2021, the case was dismissed before oral arguments took place.^[4]