Law360 is providing free access to its coronavirus coverage to make sure all members of the legal community have accurate information in this time of uncertainty and change. Use the form below to sign up for any of our weekly newsletters. Signing up for any of our section newsletters will opt you in to the weekly Coronavirus briefing.
Sign up for our Connecticut newsletter
You must correct or enter the following before you can sign up:
Thank You!
Law360 (April 29, 2020, 4:25 PM EDT ) A group of states and nonprofits urged a Manhattan federal judge to stop the Trump administration from implementing its controversial wealth test for immigrants during the coronavirus pandemic, after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to step in.
In a Tuesday night filing, New York, Vermont, Connecticut and New York City, along with a group of legal services nonprofits, asked U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels to issue a new ruling halting the so-called public charge rule, which penalizes green card applicants found likely to need public assistance in the future, for the remainder of the coronavirus national emergency.
By discouraging immigrants from seeking medical care or testing out of fear that it could be used against them in a future immigration application, the Trump administration is putting the public at "dire risk," the states and nonprofits told the court.
"If individuals are deterred from testing and thus do not know they are infected, they are more likely to inadvertently spread the virus to others — who will then spread the virus to still more people," the motion says. "And if individuals suffering from COVID-19 delay obtaining medical care, they are more likely to spread the virus, experience serious illness and need intensive care in a hospital, and potentially die from the disease."
The immigration rule, finalized in August, allows the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to deny green cards to immigrants who have used certain public benefits in the past, including Medicaid and housing subsidies, as well as those deemed likely to use public benefits in the future based on a variety of factors, including their health and education level.
Judge Daniels previously blocked DHS from implementing the rule nationwide, calling it "repugnant," but the Supreme Court gave the Trump administration reprieve from that ruling earlier this year. DHS began enforcing the policy in February.
But earlier this month, as the novel coronavirus spread across the U.S., the New York-led state coalition returned to the high court to ask the justices to rethink that decision in light of the pandemic, warning that the rule discourages immigrants from seeking health care and food assistance, including benefits.
Cook County, Illinois, and an Illinois immigrant's rights group, which separately challenged the policy in federal court, similarly asked the high court to consider reinstating a statewide injunction in light of the public health crisis.
However, the justices refused both requests Friday, but said their order does not preclude the challengers from requesting relief at the lower court.
In a statement Wednesday, New York Attorney General Letitia James said the immigration rule will "only further exacerbate the problem and punish New York and other immigrant-rich states by denying many the ability to obtain health care" and she urged the lower court to intervene.
As of Wednesday, there were nearly 290,000 confirmed coronavirus cases in the state of New York, including more than 20,000 cases in New York County, which includes Manhattan, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
"There are immigrants around the city — some of whom are subject to public charge, some of whom aren't — who are afraid to seek health care, food assistance and other types of services they need to get through both the public health and the economic crisis we're now in, because they fear repercussions under the public charge rule," Susan Welber, an attorney with the Legal Aid Society, who is representing the nonprofit challengers, told Law360 on Wednesday.
A representative for the U.S. Department of Justice declined to comment Wednesday.
The states are represented by Elena Goldstein, Matthew Colangelo, Ming-Qi Chu and Amanda Meyer of the New York attorney general's office, Joshua Perry of the Connecticut attorney general's office and Benjamin Battles, Eleanor Spottswood and Julio Thompson of the Vermont attorney general's office. New York City is represented by Tonya Jenerette, Cynthia Weaver, Doris Bernhardt and Melanie Ash of the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York.
The advocacy organizations are represented by Andrew J. Ehrlich, Jonathan H. Hurwitz, Elana R. Beale, Robert J. O'Loughlin, Daniel S. Sinnreich and Amy K. Bowles of Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Ghita Schwarz, Brittany Thomas and Baher Azmy of the Center for Constitutional Rights and Susan E. Welber, Kathleen Kelleher, Susan Cameron and Hasan Shafiqullah of the Legal Aid Society.
The government is represented by Keri L. Berman, Eric J. Soskin, Kuntal V. Cholera, Joshua M. Kolsky and Jason Lynch of the DOJ's Civil Division.
The case is State of New York et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al., case number 1:19-cv-07777, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
--Editing by Stephen Berg.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
