article: This case is one of several brought nationwide by States, counties, and nonprofit organizations challenging the Trump administration's revised, final public charge rule, which expands the types of programs that the federal government will consider in public charge determinations to now also include previously excluded health, nutrition, and housing programs. In the fall of 2019, district court judges from across the country granted preliminary injunctions enjoining the government from implementing the public charge rule. But after multiple Circuit Courts and the Supreme Court issued stays of these injunctions, the public charge rule was implemented by the government on February 24, 2020. The District Court in this case issued a judgment vacating the public charge rule. The Seventh Circuit stayed the order pending appeal and petition for certiorari. In addition, on February 2, 2021, President Biden issued an Executive Order calling for DHS to review agency actions related to the implementation of the public charge rule. A little over a month later on March 9, 2021, DHS officially abandoned the rule and the petitions for certiorari were voluntarily dismissed by the government. <u>Cook County Sues Over the Public Charge Rule</u> On September 23, 2019, Cook County, Illinois, and the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, Inc., represented by private counsel, filed this suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its acting secretary in his official capacity, and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and its acting secretary in his official capacity, under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The plaintiffs sought relief to declare the Department of Homeland Security’s Final Rule ("the Rule") unlawful and invalid due to violations of the APA and unconstitutional due to violations of the Equal Protection Clause. The plaintiffs also sought to preliminarily and permanently enjoin the Rule from being enforced in the state of Illinois. On August 14, 2019, the DHS published a <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/08/14/2019-17142/inadmissibility-on-public-charge-grounds">revised, final public charge rule</a>, which defines personal circumstances that affect the ability of individuals and their families to successfully enter the U.S. or acquire legal permanent resident status (i.e., get a green card). The final rule increases the types of programs that the federal government will consider in public charge determinations to now also include previously excluded health, nutrition, and housing programs. The Immigration and Nationality Act provides that if an immigration officer finds that a person seeking a visa is likely to become a public charge, that person is “inadmissible.” Thus, an immigrant who uses non-cash benefits such as food stamps or Medicaid may be found more likely to be a public charge and inadmissible for purposes of a visa or green card application. The plaintiffs asserted that the effect of this Rule would be to force immigrant families to choose between using these benefits or risk failing to gain permanent resident status. The plaintiffs contended that the defendants violated the APA in exceeding their statutory authority by redefining the term "public charge" and contravened existing law by considering public benefits that have been explicitly and repeatedly excluded from public charge determinations. Furthermore, the plaintiffs claimed that that Rule was arbitrary and capricious because defendants failed to justify their departure from settled practice, failed to adequately consider the Rule's varied and extensive harms, and because the Rule's complex rules will lead to arbitrary enforcement. The plaintiffs also argued that the Rule violated the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 by discriminating against people with disabilities and that the Rule violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Additionally, the plaintiffs asserted that the Rule would have a chilling effect on immigrant communities, "causing individuals to forgo critical public benefits—an impact that will cause devastating, irreparable harm to children, families, and public health in Cook County and throughout Illinois." The plaintiffs argued that immigrant families will disenroll in federal health and assistance programs, leading to adverse health, economic, and productivity results, and placing a heavy burden and strain on County agencies and programs. <u>The Plaintiffs Seek a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction</u> On September 25, 2019, after originally being assigned to Judge John Robert Blakey, the case was reassigned to Judge Gary Feinerman. On the same day, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction (PI) or stay. With the Rule set to go in effect on October 15, 2019, the plaintiffs sought immediate injunctive relief or a stay enjoining the defendants from implementing the Rule. The plaintiffs claimed that they were likely to succeed on their claim under the APA, that they would suffer irreparable harm absent immediate injunctive relief, and that the balance of equities and public interest weighed strongly in favor of an immediate injunction or stay to maintain the status quo. On October 8, 2019, the defendants filed an opposition to the plaintiffs' emergency motion. The defendants argued that the court should deny the motion because the plaintiffs were a governmental entity and a group of organizations serving immigrants, rather than persons actually affected by the rule, and thus cannot meet jurisdictional requirements. The defendants also asserted that the plaintiffs' claims were meritless, that "the Rule accords with the longstanding meaning of 'public charge' and complies with the APA" and that plaintiffs' "disagreements are ultimately with the wisdom of the policy, a judgment allocated to the political branches." A few days later the defendants filed a supplemental memorandum in opposition to the plaintiffs' emergency motion. On October 11, orders by the United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York and Eastern District of Washington preliminarily enjoined the defendants from implementing the Rule nationwide, including Illinois. The defendants asserted that the plaintiffs could no longer claim that they will suffer irreparable harm absent a PI and thus a PI at this time is inappropriate. <u>District Court Grants a Preliminary Injunction</u> Notwithstanding these nationwide PIs, on October 14, 2019, Judge Feinerman granted the plaintiffs' motion and enjoined the defendants from implementing the Rule in the State of Illinois. Judge Feinerman concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that the Rule conflicts with the Supreme Court’s formulation of public charge, in violation of the APA. Judge Feinerman further concluded that the plaintiffs have demonstrated irreparable harm in the absence of a PI and that the balance of harms favors the plaintiffs. 417 F.Supp.3d 1008. Soon after, on October 25, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to stay the PI pending appeal. The defendants argued that they were likely to succeed on appeal and that they would suffer irreparable harm absent a stay from being compelled to grant lawful permanent residence to persons who would likely become a public charge under the Rule. The defendants appealed the PI to the Seventh Circuit on October 30, 2019. Judge Feinerman denied the defendants' motion on November 14, 2019. On December 23, 2019, a Seventh Circuit panel denied the defendants' motion to stay the PI pending appeal. The Seventh Circuit's decision was in contrast to a Ninth Circuit order staying a nationwide PI, which also enjoined the implementation of the Rule, pending appeal. <u>Defendants' Motion to Dismiss</u> Back in the district court, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on January 16, 2020. The defendants argued that in light of a Ninth Circuit opinion concluding that the Rule falls within the defendants' discretion to interpret and implement the meaning of public charge and that the Supreme Court has not set a fixed definition of public charge, the plaintiffs' complaint should be dismissed. Plaintiffs, in opposition to the motion, maintained that the Rule "is inconsistent with the plain meaning of the statutory text, and DHS does not, and cannot, offer justification for this transformation of well-settled law" and will impose significant costs on the plaintiffs. <u>The Supreme Court Stays All Nationwide Injunctions Enjoining Implementation of the Public Charge Rule, but Not Illinois' Injunction</u> The Supreme Court weighed in to provide clarity to the several, overlapping PIs enjoining the implementation of the Rule that had been issued across the country. On January 27, 2020, ruling in <a href="https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=17287">State of New York v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security</a>, Justice Gorsuch stayed the Southern District of New York's nationwide PI regarding the Rule, concluding that the "routine issuance of universal injunctions is patently unworkable, sowing chaos for litigants, the government, courts, and all those affected by these conflicting decisions." However, the Supreme Court declined to stay the Northern District of Illinois' PI because it applied only to the state of Illinois. 140 S. Ct. 599. <u>Defendants Renew Efforts to Seek a Stay of the Injunction</u> Following the Supreme Court's order to stay the nationwide PI, on January 28, 2020, the defendants filed a renewed motion to the Seventh Circuit to stay the district court's PI. The defendants argued that "in light of the Supreme Court's decision holding that a stay pending appeal of injunctions against enforcement of this Rule is appropriate," the Seventh Circuit should issue a stay pending appeal to allow the Rule to go into effect in Illinois. A Seventh Circuit panel denied the renewed motion for stay on February 10, 2020, without issuing an opinion or explanation for its conclusion. Instead, the Seventh Circuit issued an expedited briefing schedule to ensure prompt consideration of the PI. On February 13, 2020, the defendants filed an application to the Supreme Court for a stay pending appeal. The defendants contended that the Seventh Circuit "stands alone in finding a stay unwarranted;" the Fourth and Ninth Circuits, along with the Supreme Court in an appeal pending in the Second Circuit, stayed "materially identical" PIs. The defendants further asserted that, even though the PI here was distinguishable because it was not nationwide, the Supreme Court indicated in its January 27 order that "challenges to the Rule will be unsuccessful and that even a more limited injunction would impose irreparable harm on the government." <u>The Supreme Court Stays Illinois' Injunction Pending the Seventh Circuit Ruling and a Writ of Certiorari</u> On February 21, 2020, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, granted the defendants' application for stay and issued an order staying the district court's PI pending disposition of the appeal in the Seventh Circuit and disposition on defendants' timely petition for a writ of certiorari. The majority did not file an opinion in support of its decision. Justice Sotomayor, dissenting, concluded that "the Government’s only claimed hardship is that it must enforce an existing interpretation of an immigration rule in one State—just as it has done for the past 20 years—while an updated version of the rule takes effect in the remaining 49," which was not enough to satisfy its "especially heavy burden." 140 S. Ct. 681. <u>The District Court Denies Defendants' Motion to Dismiss</u> On May 19, Judge Feinerman issued a memorandum opinion and order denying defendants' motion to dismiss and concluding that plaintiffs are entitled to discovery on its equal protection claim. First, Judge Feinerman denied defendants' claims that plaintiffs "lack standing or fall outside the pertinent zone of interests, that this suit is not ripe, or that the APA claims fail as a matter of law," as the court already addressed those issues in its preliminary injunction opinion. Moreover, Judge Feinerman found that plaintiffs' equal protection claim survived dismissal, as the allegation "that the Final Rule’s disproportionate impact on nonwhite immigrants motivated its promulgation is eminently plausible." Judge Feinerman further concluded that extra-record discovery on plaintiffs' equal protection claim was justified because plaintiffs' made a "strong showing that the Rule was developed and promulgated 'at least in part because of' a substantial and impermissible reason not reflected in the administrative record—the Rule’s disproportionate 'adverse effects upon' nonwhite immigrants." <u>The Seventh Circuit Affirms the Preliminary Injunction</u> On June 10, a Seventh Circuit panel (Circuit Judges Diane Wood, Ilana Rovner, and Amy Coney Barrett) issued a ruling affirming the preliminary injunction. 962 F.3d 208. Writing for a 2-1 majority, Judge Wood held that (1) the county had standing to sue; (2) DHS's interpretation of the rule fell outside the boundaries set by the statute; and (3) the public charge rule was likely to be arbitrary and capricious. Judge Barrett dissented, writing that DHS's interpretation of the public charge rule did not fall outside the boundaries set by the statute. She did not comment on the rule being likely to fail the arbitrary and capricious standard, however, because the district court didn't address it and plaintiffs barely briefed it. The stay remained, however, as defendants still had the chance to file a petition for a writ of certiorari. <u>Defendants' Appeal is Denied, as is their Petition to Rehear</u> In response to the ruling on the motion to dismiss, defendants asked the district court to certify for interlocutory appeal the denial of the motion to dismiss on June 10. Defendants argued that dismissal of plaintiffs' equal protection claim would avoid difficult issues of executive privilege arising from plaintiff's extra-record discovery. On July 14, Judge Feinerman declined to certify the order for interlocutory appeal. He found that, even if plaintiffs' equal protection claim were dismissed, plaintiffs would still be entitled to the same discovery from their APA claims. On July 27, defendants filed a petition for the Seventh Circuit to rehear their appeal of the preliminary injunction <i>en banc</i>. The Seventh Circuit denied their petition on August 12. On October 7, 2020, defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court. <u>Public Charge Rule is Vacated Following Plaintiffs' Successful Motion for Summary Judgment on APA Claim</u> On August 31, plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the APA claim. Relying on the Seventh Circuit's affirmance of the preliminary injunction, they argued that they should win on the APA claim while the equal protection claim proceeds in court. They further argued that the public charge rule should be vacated as a result. Defendants conceded that plaintiffs were likely to win on the APA claim, but argued that the injunction should only be lifted for the State of Illinois. On November 2, Judge Feinerman issued an order granting plaintiffs' motion and vacating the public charge rule nationwide. He agreed that the Seventh Circuit had effectively argued the merits of the APA claim, and held vacatur to be an appropriate remedy for a rule that violated the APA. <u>Order Vacating the Rule is Stayed Pending Appeal and Petition for Certiorari</u> Immediately after the ruling, defendants moved to stay the district court's vacatur of the public charge rule pending appeal. The Seventh Circuit granted defendants' motion on November 3. On November 19, the Seventh Circuit further ordered that the appeal of the order would be suspended pending the Supreme Court's resolution of defendants' petition for a writ of certiorari on the preliminary injunction. <u>The Rule is Officially Abandoned and Vacated</u> On January 22, 2021, two days after President Biden's inauguration, Judge Feinerman requested a status report from the new defendants addressing whether they plan to pursue their Seventh Circuit appeal or petition for certiorari. The status hearing was originally set for February 8, but was moved to February 26. On February 2, President Biden issued an Executive Order calling for DHS to review agency actions related to the implementation of the public charge rule. On March 9, 2021, <a href="https://www.dhs.gov/news/2021/03/09/dhs-secretary-statement-2019-public-charge-rule">DHS formally abandoned the rule</a>. The government voluntarily dismissed its appeal to the Seventh Circuit, lifting the stay of the November 2, 2020 decision vacating the Public Charge Final Rule nationwide. That same day, at all parties' requests, the Supreme Court dismissed the pending petition from this case, as well as a similar petition for the Second Circuit (<a href="https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=17287"><i>New York v. DHS</i></a>) and the Ninth Circuit (<a href="https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=17409"><i>San Francisco v. USCIS</i></a>). On March 10, eleven state attorneys general, led by Ken Paxton of Texas, moved to intervene as defendants in the Seventh Circuit. They filed similar motions in the Ninth and Fourth Circuits, and a day later on March 11, they filed an <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20A150/172422/20210319132528733_20A__%20Application.pdf">emergency application</a> to the Supreme Court to intervene on behalf of the government and stay the judgment from <i>Cook County</i>. Despite the motion to intervene in the Seventh Circuit, on March 12, Judge Feinerman approved a stipulation by both parties to voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit, closing the civil case. The Seventh Circuit then went on to deny the states' motion to intervene 3 days later, on March 15. As of April 15, 2021, the Public Charge Final Rule has been abandoned and vacated nationwide. The case has been closed in the district court. However, the application by the states to intervene in the Supreme Court remains open.
summary: On September 23, 2019, Cook County, Illinois and the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, Inc. filed this suit the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs challenged the Department of Homeland Security's Final Public Charge Rule (the Rule), which added non-cash benefits to the factors considered in determining whether a person applying for legal permanent residence is likely to become a public charge. The plaintiffs alleged that the Government violated the Administrative Procedure Act by exceeding its statutory authority and claimed that the Rule was "arbitrary and capricious." In October 2019 the district court ordered a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendants from implementing and enforcing the Rule in Illinois. The defendants appealed this order to the Seventh Circuit, where a panel declined to issue a stay of the district court's preliminary injunction. In February 2020 the Supreme Court granted the defendants' stay of the preliminary injunction. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction in June, 2020. The rule was subsequently vacated altogether by the district court in November, 2020, but the order was immediately stayed by the Seventh Circuit. However, the Rule was abandoned by DHS on March 9, 2021 and the Seventh Circuit subsequently lifted its stay, vacating the Rule nationwide. The case was closed in the District Court on March 12, 2021.