Wisconsin has joined 21 other states and the District of Columbia in suing the Trump administration over a question that shouldn't be especially radical: If someone wants permanent residency in the United States, should the government be allowed to consider whether that person is likely to depend on taxpayers?
Apparently Wisconsin's answer is no.
The lawsuit filed Monday seeks to stop a new Department of Homeland Security public charge rule scheduled to take effect Friday.
From Reuters:
The Department of Homeland Security rule was announced in July. It revives a policy adopted in 2019 during the Republican president's first term in office that was abandoned under Democratic President Joe Biden's administration, which in 2022 adopted a narrower definition of who would be a "public charge."
Asked about the lawsuits, a DHS spokesperson in a statement called the plaintiffs "sanctuary states" and "left-wing leaders" who were "terrified they will lose federal funds because hundreds of thousands of illegals and noncitizens might remove themselves from American welfare programs."
Under U.S. law, immigration officials have long been allowed to deem people inadmissible if they determine they would likely become "public charges" who would primarily depend on the government for support.
Under the Biden-era rule, immigration officials could consider immigrants' prior or current receipt of Supplemental Security Income and cash assistance but not their receipt of non-cash benefits such as food stamps and Medicaid, the government healthcare program for low-income people.
Those non-cash benefits had been factors under the 2019 rule and may now be considered again under the new policy.
The states argue there are no clear limits on which benefits could count against a green card applicant, leaving families guessing which forms of assistance could jeopardize their immigration status.
"This rule preys on that fear and counts on families forfeiting the food assistance, healthcare coverage and other public benefits to which they are legally entitled," New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, said in a statement.
The rule gives immigration officers broader discretion when deciding whether certain applicants for admission or green cards are likely to become dependent on government assistance.
Wisconsin signed onto the challenge alongside New York, California, Illinois, and other Democrat-led states.
President Donald Trump's administration isn't inventing the public charge concept. Federal immigration law already requires officers to consider whether certain immigrants are likely to become public charges.
Trump's rule rescinds the Biden administration's 2022 restrictions on what officers may consider and returns more discretion to the people reviewing individual cases.
The Biden rule narrowed the inquiry dramatically. Wisconsin's own Department of Health Services currently tells immigrants that FoodShare and ordinary BadgerCare Plus generally don't count against them under the public charge test. Only ongoing cash assistance and government-funded long-term institutional care are considered under the existing standard.
Trump's rule changes the calculation.
Immigration officers may consider means-tested benefits such as SNAP and Medicaid as part of the applicant's overall circumstances. Receiving a benefit doesn't automatically disqualify anyone. Officers can consider duration, amount, health, age, financial condition, work prospects, and other facts when judging whether the applicant is likely to become a public charge.
The left's objection effectively turns the immigration debate upside down. Admission to the United States is treated less like a privilege governed by American interests and more like an entitlement that Washington must justify withholding.
According to Reuters:
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani in a statement said the rule "seeks to push immigrant families away from the programs that have kept people fed and healthy for decades."
The lawsuits argue that the new rule violates a federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act because it exceeds DHS's statutory authority and departs from the longstanding meaning of the public charge provision established by Congress.
Similar lawsuits led to rulings against the prior rule the first Trump administration had adopted, and the Biden administration dropped the government's defense of the policy before adopting its own rule.
The federal government isn't confiscating anyone's groceries. It isn't declaring every poor immigrant undesirable. It isn't retroactively punishing benefits received before the rule takes effect. It's asking immigration officers to look at an applicant's financial circumstances before granting permanent legal status.
For Wisconsin taxpayers, the principle should be painfully familiar. FoodShare, Medicaid, housing assistance, and cash benefits don't materialize because government agencies have good intentions. Somebody pays for them.
Americans routinely have to prove income for mortgages, apartments, loans, and even some medical assistance programs. Yet asking whether a prospective permanent resident can support himself has somehow become so offensive that Wisconsin is helping drag the federal government into court.
DHS put the principle plainly in its final rule: immigrants should be self-reliant, and government benefits shouldn't become an incentive for immigration.
Wisconsin could've left that fight alone.
Instead, my state joined it.
And Wisconsin taxpayers get the privilege of helping pay for both sides.
Want more conservative commentary without the obligatory apology afterward? PJ Media VIP is 60% off with promo code FIGHT.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member