City & County of S.F. v. Uscis, 981 F.3d 742

Background

In August 2019 DHS promulgated a "public charge" Rule defining an inadmissible "public charge" as an alien who receives specified public benefits for more than 12 months in the aggregate within any 36-month period; the Rule also directs consideration of English proficiency.
The Rule expands the longstanding 1999 INS Guidance (which defined public charge as primary dependence on government for subsistence and expressly excluded non‑cash supplemental benefits).
Multiple states and municipalities sued under the APA, alleging financial and public‑health harms from immigrant disenrollment in federal programs that would shift costs to state and local entities.
District courts in the Northern District of California and the Eastern District of Washington granted preliminary injunctions (the latter nationwide); a Ninth Circuit motions panel stayed those injunctions pending appeal.
The Ninth Circuit panel on appeal (majority) held plaintiffs have Article III standing and are within the statute’s zone of interests; it affirmed the Northern District injunction and affirmed in part—but vacated the nationwide scope of—the Eastern District injunction.
The panel concluded the Rule likely violates the statute (contrary to the historical meaning of "public charge") and is arbitrary and capricious for failing to consider reliance interests, fiscal and public‑health effects, and for inadequately justifying a reversal of prior policy.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Article III standing & zone of interests	States/municipalities suffer imminent, concrete fiscal harms from immigrant disenrollment and their interest in preserving access to supplemental benefits aligns with statute	Harms are speculative; only federal government and immigrants are within zone of interests	Plaintiffs have Article III standing; their interests fall within the statute’s zone of interests
Statutory interpretation: meaning of "public charge"	Historically means primary, long‑term dependence for subsistence; short‑term receipt of non‑cash supplemental benefits not covered	Statute ambiguous; DHS has wide discretion to define public charge to include aggregated non‑cash benefits	Rule likely contrary to law: departs from historical/administrative meaning; plaintiffs likely to prevail
APA arbitrary and capricious	DHS failed to quantify or meaningfully address disenrollment costs, public‑health impacts (e.g., vaccination, hospital strain), and gave no adequate reason for reversing 1999 Guidance	DHS relied on policy goals (self‑sufficiency) and said effects were uncertain	Rule arbitrary and capricious for inadequate consideration of evidence and insufficient justification for policy reversal
Scope of relief: nationwide injunction	Nationwide relief needed to prevent circumvention and protect immigrants moving across jurisdictions	Injunction should be limited to plaintiffs’ territories; nationwide relief inappropriate when multiple courts review the Rule	Nationwide portion of Eastern District injunction vacated; injunctions limited to plaintiffs’ jurisdictions affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Gegiow v. Uhl, 239 U.S. 3 (1915) (public‑charge inquiry focuses on immigrant’s personal, permanent characteristics rather than local economic conditions)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires concrete, particularized and imminent injury)
Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for preliminary injunctions)
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (agency action is arbitrary and capricious if it fails to consider important aspects of the issue)
FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (2009) (agency reversing prior policy must provide a reasoned explanation)
City & County of San Francisco v. USCIS, 944 F.3d 773 (9th Cir. 2019) (motions panel stayed district injunctions pending appeal)
Cook County v. Wolf, 962 F.3d 208 (7th Cir. 2020) (Seventh Circuit affirmed preliminary injunction; rejected DHS’s broad interpretation of public charge)
New York v. DHS, 969 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2020) (Second Circuit affirmed; historical/administrative practice supports narrow meaning of public charge)
CASA de Maryland, Inc. v. Trump, 971 F.3d 220 (4th Cir. 2020) (Fourth Circuit reached a different result; discussed significance of Supreme Court stays)