As we have reported previously, ANCOR has expressed concerns about the hurdles created by the Trump Administration’s efforts to change the public charge rule.
Today, we write to share that Politico Pulse has reported that, in addition to legislative and injunctive challenges to the rule, “a federal judge in Oakland, California, hears arguments today from attorneys general trying to prevent the Trump administration's so-called public charge immigration rule from going into effect while the case works its way through the court system.
The rule, which penalizes legal immigrants who rely on public programs for health care, food and housing, would take effect Oct. 15 unless the plaintiffs prevail, POLITICO's Victoria Colliver writes.
California is leading the multistate coalition seeking a nationwide injunction, which also includes attorneys general from Maine, Oregon, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia. The group is focusing on the harms it argues the new rule would impose on states and individuals, arguing that it illegally undermines states' ability to aid their citizens. Additional suits have been filed in Illinois, Maryland, New York, and Washington.”
Last Thursday, Politico Pulse also shared that the judge overseeing the case “signaled she would likely reject a request for a nationwide freeze on the Trump administration's ‘public charge’ rule, asking immigration rights groups and states and localities opposed to the policy to provide a rationale for a narrower injunction, POLITICO's Victoria Colliver reports.
A potential timeline: U.S. District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton signaled she'd likely rule next week before the rule — which would allow federal immigration officers to deny green cards to immigrants based on the use of certain public benefits, including Medicaid —is due to take effect on Oct. 15, and asked the plaintiffs trying to kill the rule and the federal government to provide input by Monday on what a limited preliminary injunction could look like.”