Trump''s 'public charge' rule challenged by a bevy of lawsuits

Immigrants sworn in as new US citizens.

To no one's surprise, a host of lawsuits is challenging Donald Trump's proposed "public charge" law that would disqualify anyone, including legal immigrants, from US citizenship if they are using any government-funded assistance.

Nonprofits serving immigrant communities and advocates for racial equity, health, children, farmworkers, and working families Friday (Aug. 16) filed suit to block implementation of the Trump administration’s “public charge” regulation, which threatens millions of immigrant families — disproportionally families of color. 

“The public charge regulation is an attack on the culturally diverse families we serve, threatening their health and their very lives,” said Jane Garcia, chief executive officer of La Clínica de La Raza. “We will stand with our patients and their families and fight this.”

The lawsuit, La Clínica de la Raza et al. v. Trump et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. It asked the court to declare the regulation issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) unlawful and unconstitutional. DHS finalized the regulation on August 14, 2019.

Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Los Angeles is one of the advocacy groups that have joined the suit. 

"This expansion of the rule is part and parcel of the administration's crusade to instill fear in immigrant communities of color,” said Laboni Hoq, litigation director at Advancing Justice - LA. “By including criteria such as English language proficiency as a negative factor for obtaining permanent residency, the administration is telling immigrants that they are not welcome here.  

"Xenophobia has no place in our country, let alone our laws." said Hoq.

Later in the day, California and several other states joined an earlier suit filed by San Francisco and Santa Clara Counties.

“This cruel policy would force working parents and families across the nation to forego basic necessities like food, housing, and healthcare out of fear. That is simply unacceptable,” California's Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement announcing the lawsuit.

The state's suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and its other plaintiffs also include Maine, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C. They argue that the rule violates the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment, is arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law.

Trump's new regulation targets programs that serve whole families — Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and Section 8 housing assistance — meaning its impact will extend well beyond immigrants directly affected. As a result, experts warn, the regulation will result in increases in hunger, unmet health and housing needs, and poverty. Because affected immigrants are overwhelmingly immigrants of color, the rule is also expected to widen racial disparities. 

Independent analysts estimate that the regulation threatens millions of people. A significant portion of those threatened by the regulation were born in the U.S., and nearly a third of those are children.

In addition to La Clínica de la Raza and Advancing Justice-LA, the advocates' suit was joined by African Communities Together, the California Primary Care Association, the Central American Resource Center, the Council on American Islamic Relations - California, Farmworker Justice, the Korean Resource Center, the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County, and Maternal and Child Health Access. The plaintiffs are represented by the National Immigration Law Center,  the National Health Law Program and the Western Center on Law and Poverty.

The complaint argues that the regulation was motivated by racial bias against nonwhite immigrants and asks the court to strike it down as a violation of Equal Protection under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. As indicators of a motivating racial animus, the complaint cites the administration’s acknowledgement that the policy will have a disparate impact on families of color, Trump’s own racist statements, and his administration’s other racially-biased policies.

“Donald Trump pushed to execute innocent Black men wrongly accused of murder. He called the white supremacists in Charlottesville ‘very fine people.’ He slurred Black immigrants from Haiti and Nigeria. And he froze or cancelled protected status for immigrants from majority-Black countries. Donald Trump’s words and his actions have consistently targeted Black families,” said Amaha Kassa, founder and executive director of African Communities Together.

“This rule change is a direct attack on communities of color and their families, and furthers this administration’s desire to make this country work primarily for the wealthy and white. Our immigration system cannot be based on the racial animosities of this administration, or whether or not people are wealthy,” said Antionette Dozier, senior attorney at the Western Center on Law and Poverty.

Plaintiffs also assert that the regulation violates the Administrative Procedure Act because it is contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious. The complaint also argues that the regulation is invalid because the official who approved its publication, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, was appointed in violation of the Constitution’s Appointments Clause and the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.

More than 260,000 public comments were submitted on the draft regulation last fall, the vast majority in opposition. 

“This rule is a scare tactic designed to create fear and confusion in immigrant communities. The devastating effects will reach even further than the text of the rule itself, as immigrants and their families forgo vital food, housing, and health care services,” said Jane Perkins, legal director at the National Health Law Program.

_________________________________________________________________