A broad coalition comprising 23 U.S. states, plus the city of New York, and various municipalities has filed lawsuits in federal court to block the implementation of the controversial "Public Charge Rule". The legal challenge argues that the Executive Branch exceeded its constitutional authority and imposed disproportionate costs on local social safety nets.

The legal action was filed in the Manhattan federal court, led by Democratic-governed states—including New York, California, and Illinois—and accompanied by a parallel lawsuit brought by city and local governments. The lawsuits target a regulation issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that substantially expands the criteria allowing immigration officials to deny permanent residency visas (Green Cards) to immigrants who utilize state assistance programs.

The core of the legal challenge rests on the encroachment upon the Legislative Branch's authority. According to the court filings, the federal administration exceeded the authority granted by the U.S. Congress—the body to which the Constitution reserves the exclusive prerogative to establish requirements and guidelines for obtaining residency in the country.

Historically, the public charge rule applied only to individuals who were predominantly dependent on the government for direct financial subsistence. However, the new policy penalizes the legal use of essential non-monetary aid—such as food assistance programs and government-funded Medicaid healthcare—extending scrutiny even to benefits received by applicants' familymembers.

New York Attorney General Letitia James, alongside local leaders such as Mayor Zohran Mamdani, highlighted one of the policy's harshest aspects: the heightened insecurity facing the family unit. Under this new interpretation, an immigrant’s residency visa could be denied if their children—even those who are U.S. citizens by birth—utilize government programs to which they are legally entitled, such as state health plans or free school meals. According to the coalition, this requirement "exploits fear", discouraging even legal residents from seeking basic medical care and essential nutrition due to the risk of immigration-related repercussions.

In response to legal challenges, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rejected these arguments and dismissed the Democratic coalition's warnings as alarmist. In an official statement, the federal agency argued that so-called "sanctuary states" actually fear the loss of federal funding, asserting that the rule aims solely to ensure compliance with laws requiring financial self-sufficiency for Green Card applicants and to prevent undue reliance on the country's social welfare systems.