Santa Clara County sues Trump over sweeping green card changes

Santa Clara County and San Francisco are working to stop President Donald Trump from giving federal agents sweeping discretion on who can obtain a green card.

A Sept. 14 lawsuit filed alongside New York City, Chicago, Seattle and King County, Washington alleges the Trump administration’s new criteria for barring immigrants from becoming lawful, permanent residents if they and their family members have utilized any public benefit is unlawful. Immigration advocates worry the rules will make people drop out of benefits and create a more complicated and drawn out process, thus deterring people from applying for green cards.

California, New Jersey, New York and other states have filed a separate lawsuit against these new rules, which take effect Sept. 18.

“Congress never intended or authorized immigration officers to have unchecked discretion to deny someone legal status for using government programs, but that’s exactly what this rule gives them,” State Attorney General Rob Bonta said at a Monday news conference in San Francisco.

The “public charge” rule, which bars immigrants from obtaining a green card if they are dependent on government benefits, has been around since 1882. The rule has been implemented differently depending on the president, but has been generally understood as immigrants who make government benefits their primary, long-term source of sustenance. Refugees, human trafficking victims and people seeking temporary protected status are exempt from the rule.

Trump’s new rule upends decades of immigration policy, the lawsuit alleges.

Trump is expanding the guidelines to include immigrants receiving “any and all benefits.” That could include people who receive cash assistance, Medi-Cal, food stamps, housing assistance, childcare and more. Due to the vague guidelines, it can also include people in the applicant’s household who accessed benefits — something that wasn’t evaluated before.

“This rule amounts to a wealth test for residents who are lawfully seeking status,” Santa Clara County Counsel Tony LoPresti said at the news conference. “I believe the sonnet goes ‘give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses’ — not give me your wealthy, your famous and your fortune. Our nation’s laws have never allowed that kind of wealth test, and in spite of President Trump’s best efforts, he doesn’t have the authority to unilaterally require one.”

Trump also tried expanding who could be deemed a public charge in 2019 during his first term, but considerations did not extend to family members, such as U.S. born children using government benefits. Santa Clara County, San Francisco and the state also sued Trump at the time and successfully blocked it.

California has filed 92 lawsuits against the Trump administration since his second term started last year.

San Jose immigration attorney Richard Hobbs said the expanded rules will force immigrants to choose between obtaining legal status or paying rent and having their U.S. family members get small amounts of public benefits.

“Santa Clara County is already the most expensive housing market in the country,” Hobbs told San José Spotlight. “Undocumented immigrants, who usually work two jobs to pay rent, are now subject to a draconian shift after more than a century of established law.”

LoPresti said the new rules are meant to bully immigrants and create fear that receiving any public benefits will result in a denial of a green card. This in turn puts greater pressure on Santa Clara County to provide medical care for people who opt out of Medi-Cal, and strains food banks, homeless shelters and other public services.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security anticipates the expanded public charge rule will cause people in mixed-status households to drop their benefits, estimating the federal government will save more than $13 billion a year. During Trump’s first term, about one in seven immigrants reported avoiding using government benefits after the announcement of the 2019 public charge rule changes.

“This rule is morally bankrupt,” LoPresti said. “The rule puts people and families that need support to survive and thrive into vulnerable positions that will put unnecessary strain on our cities, our counties and our states.”

Contact Joyce Chu at [email protected] or @joyce_speaks on X.