San Francisco challenges ‘public charge’ rule that targets immigrants

San Francisco, CA (September 14, 2026) — San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu announced today that San Francisco and a coalition of local governments filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for issuing an unlawful expanded “public charge” rule that will create a wealth test for immigrants entering the United States or applying for green cards.

The new rule significantly expands immigration officers’ discretion, allowing them to consider a broad range of public benefits usage when determining whether someone is a “public charge” or likely to be primarily dependent on government benefits for support. An individual designated a public charge may be denied a green card or entry into the United States. Previously, immigration officers were limited to reviewing an immigrant’s receipt of cash assistance or long-term institutional care in making public charge determinations.

The rule is set to go into effect September 18 but has already instilled fear in immigrant communities and dissuaded them from participating in civic life and essential public benefit programs.

“This rule forces people to make an impossible choice between a future in our country or their health and well-being,” said City Attorney Chiu. “It is a blatant attempt to sow fear and confusion in our immigrant communities and coerce people into withdrawing from critical government services. We will all bear the cost of this misguided policy, which will shift millions of dollars in costs onto San Francisco. We will always welcome immigrants from all backgrounds and fight any attempts to institute a wealth test for citizenship.”

“No family should have to choose between accessing healthcare and nutrition assistance today — or protecting their pathway to a green card tomorrow,” said California Attorney General Bonta. “The Trump Administration is seeking to rewrite more than 100 years of law with its expansive new definition of who is considered a ‘public charge.’ In doing so, it is providing individual immigration officers with the discretion and power to punish families for lawfully accessing certain public benefits programs during short term periods of need. This Administration’s cruelty continues to know no bounds. We’re going to court on behalf of the millions of immigrants who call this state home — and we will fight to get this unlawful rule undone.”

“The Trump Administration’s illegal public charge rule flies in the face of more than a hundred years of law and history and decades of federal guidance—and we will not tolerate the harms it imposes on our residents,” said Santa Clara County Counsel Tony LoPresti. “This is a deliberate attack against families, designed to bully them into dropping health insurance and delaying medical care, forgoing food assistance, and avoiding other critical services out of fear that accepting these essential but supplemental supports will jeopardize their immigration status. It is legally wrong and morally bankrupt to force families to make the impossible choice between protecting their health and protecting their future. We will continue to stand up in court for dignity and opportunity for all.”

“The new public charge rule seeks to push immigrant families away from the programs that have kept people fed and healthy for decades. New Yorkers will be afraid to see a doctor or ask for help they are legally entitled to. That fear will not stop at the families that the federal government is targeting. Families who remain fully eligible for benefits will feel a chilling effect, and all New Yorkers will pay for it,” said New York City Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani. “New York City is proud to lead a coalition of cities and counties — Chicago, San Francisco, Santa Clara County, Seattle, and King County — standing firmly against this cruel and unlawful rule. Our immigrant communities are not a burden. They are the people who make New York City and country great. We will use every tool at our disposal to ensure they can continue to live here with dignity and without fear.”

Background
Public charge is a term that federal immigration officials use when determining whether a
noncitizen applying to enter the U.S. or obtain a green card is likely to become primarily dependent on government benefits for support. Previously, immigration officials making public charge determinations could only look at cash assistance programs and long-term institutional care paid for by Medi-Cal.

On July 16, DHS announced a final rule titled “Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility” that rescinds the existing, narrow public charge regulation without replacing it. This radically expands the grounds for public charge determinations, which could cause applicants to be denied green cards or entry into the United States.

This change will give unchecked discretion to immigration officers to consider any public benefits usage when making public charge determinations. Immigration officers can now consider any non-cash, income-based federal, state, or local public benefit—including Medicaid, food assistance, housing assistance, and free and reduced school lunch programs. Officers can even consider “other relevant” factors at their own discretion.

The rule’s intentional vagueness will sow fear and confusion, causing residents to withdraw from essential benefits, and ultimately harming public health, safety, and local economies. Though the rule is not yet in effect, San Francisco has already devoted resources to address the chilling effects.

San Francisco administers an array of housing assistance and public health benefits to the City’s most vulnerable. The rule would impact departments that help thousands of residents, including the San Francisco’s Human Services Agency, Disability and Aging Services, Department of Public Health, and the Department of Children, Youth, and their Families.

DHS anticipates at least 10 percent of individuals in households with noncitizens will disenroll from public benefits. In San Francisco, this could mean roughly 9,500 people leaving Medi-Cal, 34,000 people leaving SNAP, 2,400 people leaving CalFresh, and hundreds withdrawing from In‑Home Supportive Services.

The City could lose millions in federal reimbursements with major impacts across departments. Because San Francisco’s safety‑net programs are meant to supplement, not replace, federal benefits, the City would face significantly higher costs to meet residents’ needs.

President Trump tried to implement similar expanded public charge criteria during his first administration. In 2019, San Francisco and Santa Clara County jointly filed the first case in the nation challenging that rule and several coalitions followed. Appellate courts across the country unanimously agreed that the 2019 rule was unlawful and prohibited it from being implemented. San Francisco and Santa Clara’s case was heard before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022, but the Court dismissed the matter and declined to overturn the lower court rulings. The Biden Administration eventually rescinded the 2019 rule.

The 2026 final rule will take effect September 18, 2026, and applies to applications for entry or adjustment of immigration status filed after the effective date. Importantly, the public charge rule does not apply to all immigrants. Those who think they may be impacted should seek information from trusted sources and consult with an attorney.

San Francisco joins the City of Chicago, City of New York, City of Seattle, Santa Clara County, and Martin Luther King Jr. County in the lawsuit, which alleges the Final Rule violates the Administrative Procedures Act. Plaintiff jurisdictions are asking the Court to vacate the Final Rule, permanently enjoin the Rule’s enforcement, and declare it unlawful. A coalition of states Attorney General also filed a similar case today in the Southern District of New York.

The case is City of New York et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 26-cv-07982. View a copy of the complaint.