City And County Of San Francisco v. United States Citizenship And Immigration Services

944 F.3d 773 (9th Cir. 2019)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

In 1999, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), providing guidance to the public and INS field officers, defined 'public charge' as an 'alien . . . who is likely to become . . . primarily dependent on the government for subsistence' as demonstrated by either 'institutionalization for long-term care at government expense' or 'receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance.' It stated that non-cash benefits would not be taken into account for public-charge purposes. In August 2019, following notice and comment, the Department of Homeland Security adopted a new rule, redefining the term 'public charge' to require consideration of not only cash benefits but also certain non-cash benefits. A public charge was now 'an alien who receives one or more public benefits . . . for more than 12 months in the aggregate within any 36-month period.' DHS defined 'public benefits.' Consistent with the 1999 Field Guidance, DHS still considers receipt of cash assistance from Supplemental Security Income (SSI); Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF); and federal, state, or local general assistance programs to be public benefits. To that list, DHS added non-cash assistance received through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Section 8 housing assistance, Section 8 project-based rental assistance, Medicaid (with certain exceptions), and Section 9 public housing. DHS's rule exempts public benefits received for emergency medical conditions, benefits received under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and school-based services or benefits. It exempts those benefits received by aliens under 21 years of age, women during pregnancy, and members of the armed forces and their families. City, and County (Ps) brought suits in California and Washington seeking a preliminary injunction against the implementation of the rule. The district court granted a preliminary injunction on the basis of the APA, effective against implementation of the rule. Another group of Ps filed suit in the Eastern District of Washington against DHS under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the APA. The district court granted a preliminary injunction on the basis of the APA claims and issued a nationwide injunction. D seeks a stay of both preliminary injunctions.