County of San Francisco v. Uscis, 944 F.3d 773

Background:

The INA bars admission of any alien "likely at any time to become a public charge," and directs officers to consider age, health, family status, assets/resources/financial status, and education/skills.
INS 1999 Field Guidance treated "public charge" as primarily dependent on government subsistence and counted only cash assistance (e.g., SSI, TANF) or long-term institutionalization; non-cash benefits were excluded.
DHS promulgated a 2019 Final Rule redefining "public charge" to include receipt of specified non-cash benefits (SNAP, certain housing assistance, Medicaid with exceptions, etc.) and to treat receipt exceeding 12 months in any 36-month period as significant.
Multiple States, counties, and organizations sued in two district courts (N.D. Cal. and E.D. Wash.); both courts issued preliminary injunctions (California-limited and Washington nationwide) blocking the Final Rule.
DHS moved for emergency stays pending appeal to the Ninth Circuit; the Ninth Circuit granted stays, concluding DHS showed a strong likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, and that equities/public interest favored a stay.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing	States will suffer imminent financial and operational injury from disenrollment and lost federal reimbursements, giving Article III standing.	Injuries are speculative and rest on attenuated third-party choices; no certainly impending harm.	States sufficiently alleged imminent, traceable injuries; standing exists at the preliminary stage.
Statutory validity of Final Rule ("public charge")	Final Rule unlawfully expands "public charge" beyond INA/1999 Guidance; Congress implicitly rejected such expansion.	INA is ambiguous; DHS has regulatory authority and permissibly construed "public charge" to include certain in-kind benefits and a temporal test.	Chevron step 1: term ambiguous; step 2: DHS’s interpretation is a reasonable construction of the INA and likely lawful.
APA arbitrary-and-capricious challenge (costs, disenrollment, public health)	DHS failed to adequately consider state/local costs, disenrollment effects, and public-health consequences (e.g., vaccinations).	DHS conducted extensive analysis, considered comments, and refined exemptions (children, pregnancy); changes were reasoned policy judgments.	DHS gave adequate explanations and responses; the Final Rule likely is not arbitrary and capricious.
Stay factors (irreparable harm; equities; public interest)	States will suffer irreparable fiscal and public-health harms if the rule takes effect.	DHS will irreparably lose the ability to enforce its statutory interpretation and may be unable to undo adjustment-of-status grants; public interest favors enforcement.	DHS demonstrated irreparable harm and a strong likelihood on the merits; balance of equities and public interest favor a stay.

Key Cases Cited

Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (factors for stay pending appeal; likelihood of success and irreparable harm are critical)
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (two-step test for judicial review of agency statutory interpretation)
Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967 (2005) (deference to permissible agency interpretations even if court would adopt different reading)
Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunction standard)
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (APA arbitrary-and-capricious review requires reasoned explanation)
Dep’t of Commerce v. New York, 139 S. Ct. 2551 (2019) (predictable third-party effects can establish injury for standing)
Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (injury must be certainly impending; contrasted in standing analysis)
Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 136 S. Ct. 2117 (2016) (requirements for reasoned explanation when agency changes course)
FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (2009) (agency need not prove new policy superior but must provide good reasons)
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (standing requires concrete and particularized injury)