A federal judge in Texas dismissed a lawsuit that argued the state could deny permanent residency to immigrants who use certain public benefits, known as the “public charge” rule. The judge ruled that Texas did not have standing, meaning they couldn’t prove that changing the policy would lead to more immigration or higher costs for the state.

The lawsuit challenged a decision by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to remove the expanded definition of public charge, which had been put in place during the Trump administration. Originally, the rule only included those relying on cash benefits. The expanded definition added non-cash benefits like housing assistance. Texas argued that removing these non-cash benefits was unfair and that the federal government overstepped its authority.

The judge explained that Texas needed to show it had a valid reason to bring the lawsuit before addressing its claims. He concluded that Texas did not provide enough evidence to establish this standing, so he denied their request for a quick judgment. Instead, he approved the federal government’s motion, confirming that Texas lacked standing.

The expanded public charge rule was introduced in 2019 under Trump and took effect in early 2020. The Biden administration reversed this rule after a public comment period, finalizing its new policy in September 2022. Texas filed its lawsuit in January 2023, claiming the new rule violated a law known as the “Welfare Reform Act.” In August 2023, the judge rejected the Biden administration’s request to dismiss Texas’s challenge, suggesting that legal disputes are likely to continue.

If you have questions about the public charge rule or any U.S. immigration-related issue, please contact us. Our experienced attorneys work with our clients every step of the way to maximize their odds of the best possible outcome. ILBSG offers experience across employment-based and family-based immigration matters.