New York v. United States Department of Homeland Security, Make the Road
969 F.3d 42
2d Cir.2020Background
- DHS issued a 2019 "Public Charge" Final Rule redefining a "public charge" as any non-citizen who receives one or more specified public benefits for more than 12 months in any 36-month period and expanded the list of relevant benefits (e.g., Medicaid, SNAP, HUD housing programs, SSI, TANF).
- The Final Rule replaced the longstanding 1999 INS Field Guidance, which defined "public charge" to mean primary dependence on government for subsistence (generally demonstrated by cash assistance or long-term institutionalization) and treated non-cash benefits as generally not probative.
- Two separate suits in SDNY (one by States: NY, CT, VT, NYC; one by nonprofit organizations) challenged the Rule under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment; district court granted nationwide preliminary injunctions enjoining DHS from enforcing the Rule.
- On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed the grant of preliminary injunctive relief but narrowed the injunction’s geographic scope to New York, Connecticut, and Vermont.
- The court held plaintiffs had standing, fell within the statute’s zone of interests, and showed likelihood of success on APA claims: (1) the Rule was contrary to the Immigration and Nationality Act as ratified by longstanding administrative and judicial interpretations, and (2) the Rule was arbitrary and capricious for failing to supply a reasoned explanation for its changed definition and expanded benefits list.
- The court weighed irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest in plaintiffs’ favor and explained reasons for limiting (not vacating) the nationwide scope of the district court’s injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing | States and orgs showed imminent, concrete harms from chilling and operational costs (lost federal funds, increased uncompensated care, diverted nonprofit resources). | DHS argued harms speculative or offset by savings from decreased benefits; org injuries too abstract. | Standing satisfied: plaintiffs demonstrated injury-in-fact, causation, redressability. |
| Zone of Interests | Plaintiffs’ interests (state fiscal health, immigrant services) fall within purposes of public charge statute (balance admission vs exclusion). | DHS said plaintiffs’ goals (encouraging benefits use) fall outside statute’s interests. | Plaintiffs fall within zone of interests; test is not demanding for APA claims. |
| Interpretation of "public charge" (Chevron/ratification) | Rule exceeds congressional intent; Congress ratified long-settled meaning (dependency/ inability to support oneself) by reenacting INA provisions, so deference not due. | DHS argued historical meanings varied and statutes/policies (PRWORA, affidavits) permit broader definition including non-cash benefits. | Court applied ratification canon, found settled historical meaning focused on sustained dependency; Rule is contrary to the INA. |
| APA arbitrary-and-capricious challenge | DHS failed to provide reasoned explanation for changing definition and for treating broadly supplemental non-cash benefits as dispositive evidence of lack of self-sufficiency. | DHS defended change as aligning public charge policy with PRWORA "self-sufficiency" aims and correcting an artificial cash/non-cash distinction. | Court held DHS’s explanations inadequate and unsubstantiated; Rule arbitrary and capricious. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (framework for judicial review of agency statutory interpretations)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunction standard)
- Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass'n v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (agencies must provide reasoned explanation; arbitrary-and-capricious review)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing requirements)
- Gegiow v. Uhl, 239 U.S. 3 (1915) (early Supreme Court discussion of "public charge")
- Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018) (deference boundaries; "Chevron leaves the stage" when Congress's intent is clear)