Free Republic

A divided panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled Wednesday in favor of the Trump administration’s new “public charge” rule, conflicting with other recent circuit rulings. Both the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh and the Second Circuit have recently issued rulings against the Trump administration's public charge rule.

The Supreme Court on Friday denied a request to block the Trump administration's "public charge" rule during the coronavirus health crisis. A group of state attorneys general had asked the court to issue an injunction against the rule, which links a migrant's eligibility for legal status with the likelihood that he or she will rely on public assistance. The court had decided earlier this year to allow the rule to go into effect, but the group of state officials, led by New York Attorney General Letitia James (D), had asked the justices to revisit the decision in light of the...

Rep. Norma Torres (D-Calif.) penned a letter to Vice President Pence asking him to “reconsider the implementation” of the “public charge” rule in light of the coronavirus outbreak. The rule, which critics call a “wealth test” for immigrants, was contested in U.S. district courts since it was introduced in August until the Supreme Court ruled in the administration’s favor last Friday. The new provision could deem an immigrant ineligible for permanent status or citizenship if they have a history of using public assistance, such as Medicaid. On Wednesday, President Trump made a rare appearance in the White House briefing room,...

Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a scathing rebuke of the court's decision to allow the Trump administration to enforce its "public charge" rule in the state of Illinois, limiting which non-citizens can obtain visas to enter the U.S. Sotomayor's problems with the conservative majority's ruling went far beyond this case, claiming that it was symptomatic of the court's habit of siding with the government when they seek emergency stays of rulings against them. "It is hard to say what is more troubling: that the Government would seek this extraordinary relief seemingly as a matter of course, or that...

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Trump administration on Friday night in a case that contested the president’s “public charge” rule, which critics have called a “wealth test” for legal immigrants. The policy in question, the Immigration and Nationality Act, would make it harder for immigrants who are “likely at any time to become a public charge” to obtain green cards. The policy discourages legal immigrants in the process of obtaining permanent legal status or citizenship from using public assistance, including Medicaid, housing vouchers and food stamps. The case heard by the court, Wolf v. Cook County, sought...

Donald Trump's rule changes the so-called "public charge" rule that withholds green cards from immigrants dependent on government services. Federal immigration law says that immigrants desiring permanent legal status can be denied if they are likely to become a "public charge."Previously the government defined "public charge" as anyone receiving cash benefits. Those getting food stamps or housing assistance were exempt. The rule change means that green cards will only go to those who are free of dependency on government. New York and Illinois sued the administration over the change and federal judges issued injunctions preventing the rule from being...

Last month the Supreme Court granted the federal government’s request for permission to enforce a rule known as the “public charge” rule, which prohibits noncitizens from receiving a green card if the government believes that they are likely to rely on public assistance. That ruling put on hold a pair of orders by a federal district court in New York, which had blocked the government from enforcing the rule anywhere in the nation. Tonight the justices, by a vote of 5-4, allowed the government to enforce the rule in Illinois while it appeals an order by a district court there...

Today’s stay from the Supreme Court is a massive win for American taxpayers, American workers, and the American Constitution. This decision allows the Government to implement regulations effectuating longstanding Federal law that newcomers to this country must be financially self-sufficient and not a “public charge” on our country and its citizens. Two courts of appeals had already ruled that the Government should be able to implement these regulations, but one single district judge’s nationwide injunction remained. As two Justices pointed out today, the expanding practice of district courts entering nationwide injunctions raises real problems about the proper power of a...

The Supreme Court has voted to allow the Trump administration to enforce its new rule that restricts the eligibility of new immigrants who are deemed to likely become “public charges” if they receive visas.The top court justices voted 5-4 on Monday to grant a stay on nationwide injunctions issued by a lower court, allowing the Trump administration to enforce its “public charge” rule across the country, except for Illinois, while the appeals play out in court. A separate injunction ordered by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois remains in effect but only in that state.Justices...

A divided Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to begin implementing rules that make it easier for the government to deny limited-income immigrants residency or admission to the U.S. because they use public-assistance programs or might use them in the future. The court, in a written order Monday, granted the administration’s emergency request to start enforcing the rules for now, a move that nullifies an order by a federal appeals court that blocked the immigration restrictions while litigation was ongoing. The court’s action came on a 5-to-4 vote, splitting the justices along ideological lines, with conservatives in the majority. Announced...

A federal appeals court on Wednesday refused to set aside an injunction blocking the Trump administration from enforcing a rule that would withhold green cards from immigrants likely to require government assistance such as Medicaid or food stamps. In a brief order, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan also set an expedited schedule for the White House’s appeal of a lower court ruling against the rule, with legal papers to be submitted by Feb. 14 and oral arguments to be held soon afterward. The “public charge” rule unveiled last year would make it harder for immigrants who...

A federal judge in New York has temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s “public charge” rule linking immigrants’ legal status to their use of public benefits. Judge George Daniels in the Southern District of New York issued a temporary nationwide injunction stopping the administration from enforcing the requirements, as well as a stay of the effective date. The rule was scheduled to take effect Oct. 15. The final rule, which was announced in August, targets immigrants trying to enter the United States or those already living here who are trying to obtain a green card. Under the rule, any immigrant who...

The "public charge" doctrine has been a foundation of American immigration policy going back hundreds of years to colonial times. The notion is that immigrants who are unable to support themselves, thus becoming public charges, should not be admitted or permitted to remain. In 1996, Congress enacted a federal immigration law codifying the public charge principle, and it has remained on the books in the same form ever since. So what do you call the Trump administration's plan to enforce that law? On Saturday's AM Joy, Democrat pollster and MSNBC contributor Fernand Amandi offered a crazy take: "This is a...

Two California counties on Tuesday filed the first lawsuit against the Trump administration's new "public charge" rule that allows the government to deny entry or green cards to immigrants based on their use of public programs like food stamps and Medicaid. Representatives for Santa Clara County and San Francisco filed the suit seeking a temporary injunction in the District Court for the Northern District of California. The counties allege the rule change hurts "critical public health and safety-net systems, is arbitrary and capricious, flouts federal law, and seeks to usurp Congress’ authority by administratively repealing its longstanding family-based immigration system."...