Share
Republican Rule Denying Non-Wealthy Immigrants Reinstated by Supreme Court
On Monday [January 27, 2020], the Supreme Court did something that’s become quite familiar in the Trump age: It reinstated a harsh new immigration policy that had been blocked by lower courts. This particular policy, known as the “public charge” rule, makes it easier for the United States to exclude lower-income immigrants.
The US Supreme Court on Monday allowed a rule to go into effect that creates new barriers to low-income immigrants seeking to enter the US, representing a major victory for President Trump in his mission to restrict legal immigration.
The so-called public charge rule, published in August by the Homeland Security Department and originally scheduled to go into effect October 15, 2019, establishes a test to determine whether an immigrant applying to enter the US, extend their visa, or convert their temporary immigration status into a green card is likely to end up relying on public benefits.
Immigration officials will now have much more leeway to turn away those who are “likely to be a public charge” based on an evaluation of 20 factors, ranging from the use of certain public benefits programs — including food stamps, Section 8 housing vouchers, and Medicaid — to English language proficiency.
The court did not explain its Department of Homeland Security v. New York decision, which is temporary — it lasts until the case makes its way through the appeals process and, most likely, to the justices’ decision on its merits. Monday’s order was split 5-4 along partisan lines.
In a 5-4 decision, the high court’s conservative majority voted to allow the rule to be implemented while legal challenges brought by t he state of New York and immigrant advocacy groups proceed. Lower courts had prevented the rule from being implemented while it made its way through the courts. But rather than waiting for those courts to issue final rulings, Trump asked the Supreme Court earlier this month to intervene — a once-rare occurrence that has become standard practice under this administration — and to allow the rule to go into effect.
Opponents of the rule had challenged it on the basis that it flouts the narrow definition of what it means to be a “public charge” — dependent on government benefits — under federal immigration law.