October, 07 2019, 12:00am EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Yatziri Tovar, Make the Road New York, (917) 771-2818, yatziri.tovar@maketheroadny.org
Alejandra Lopez, The Legal Aid Society, (917) 294-9348, ailopez@legal-aid.org
Jen Nessel, Center for Constitutional Rights, (212) 614-6449, jnessel@ccrjustice.org
Immigrant Rights Groups in Court to Halt Public Charge Rule
Judge To Make Final Decision to Grant Preliminary Injunction This Week
WASHINGTON
Immigrant rights groups appeared today in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on Make the Road New York v Cuccinelli - litigation brought last month challenging the Trump administration's unilateral and unconstitutional changes to "public charge."
Plaintiffs today petitioned the court to grant a preliminary injunction before the proposed changes to "public charge" take effect on October 15, 2019. Federal Judge George B. Daniels ordered plaintiffs to submit a proposed order by tomorrow at noon ET, and stated that he would issue a decision on the preliminary injunction by the end of this week.
Attorneys from the Center for Constitutional Rights, The Legal Aid Society, and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP litigated the case on behalf of Make the Road New York, African Services Committee, Asian American Federation, Catholic Charities Community Services, and Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC).
Today, plaintiffs argued that this dramatic change should be halted until the lawfulness of the proposed rule is determined. New York State Attorney General Letitia James has filed a separate lawsuit over the rule, and attorneys from the AG's office also asked the court today to enjoin the rule.
Ghita Schwarz, a senior attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, said, "This rule discriminates based on race, disability, and income in order to drastically reduce the number of immigrants who win permanent status in this country. It flouts the will of Congress and can't be squared with the principles of our immigration statute."
Susan Welber, Staff Attorney in the Law Reform Unit at The Legal Aid Society, said, "This unlawful rule upends family-based immigration, which has been the hallmark of our nation's immigration policy for decades. It goes against our nation's fundamental values and seeks to punish hard-working immigrants, sending them the message that if they are not wealthy they are not welcome. Today, we stood before the court to underscore the critical need to protect our plaintiffs and immigrant family clients from harm by stopping the Rule from taking effect on October 15."
Javier H. Valdes, Co-Executive Director at Make the Road New York, said, "The Trump administration's deliberate attacks to punish immigrants and working class people of color are inhumane and unlawful. Our family-based immigration system should not be a wealth test that disproportionately favors the white and wealthy. This reckless public charge rule change would lead to irreversible damage to immigrant families who need survival services and programs if it is allowed to take effect on October 15th. The courts must act now to protect our legal immigration system and prevent this rule change."
BACKGROUND
On August 14th, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a final version of a new "public charge" regulation, and litigation teams from across the country quickly filed lawsuits challenging it. On August 27th, Make the Road New York, African Services Committee, Asian American Federation, Catholic Charities Community Services, and Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC), represented by The Legal Aid Society, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, filed a complaint seeking a permanent injunction to block the rule from taking effect on October 15th. Attorneys say the rule uses vague, arbitrary, and discriminatory criteria to determine when an individual is likely to become a "public charge," and that even those who would not fall under the new definition are likely to forgo critical benefits such as housing assistance, food assistance, and healthcare, out of fear that accessing those benefits could threaten their immigration status.
The proposed rule would redefine the way the term "public charge" has been understood for more than a century, namely as a category of people who are institutionalized or otherwise completely dependent upon public assistance. In stark contrast, the rule proposed by the Trump administration--and opposed by the great majority of the 266,000 individuals, advocacy groups, and local governments who opposed it during the public comment period--would define as a public charge anyone the immigration service deems likely to receive, even temporarily, any amount, however minimal, of a wide range of cash and non-cash benefits, including Federal Medicaid or housing assistance. Those deemed a public charge would be denied permanent immigration status.
To predict the likelihood that a person will receive public benefits, the government would consider as negative factors an income under 125 percent of the federal poverty guidelines, age under 18 or over 62, medical conditions, lack of private health insurance, below-average credit scores, and limited English proficiency.
The lawsuit claims that the rule violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution because it is motivated by animus towards immigrants of color and intended to disproportionately affect immigrants from countries with primarily non-white populations. Filings in the case point to statements by Trump administration officials involved in drafting the rule demonizing immigrants of color.
In addition to the direct effects upon those deemed a public charge--which attorneys say will tear families apart, lead to increased deportations, and throw the existing immigration system into disarray--the lawsuit further warns that even those who would not technically be covered by the rule will forgo benefits out of fear that accessing them would jeopardize their immigration status--a so-called "chilling effect." To prevent the resulting upheaval, attorneys today asked the judge to issue a preliminary injunction enjoining the rule for the duration of the lawsuit, until the lawfulness constitutionality of the rule is determined.
For more information, see the Center for Constitutional rights case page for Make the Road New York v. Cuccinelli.
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. CCR is committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.
(212) 614-6464LATEST NEWS
'Project 2025 in Action': Trump Administration Fires Half of Education Department Staff
"Trump and Elon Musk have aimed their wrecking ball at public schools and the futures of the 50 million students."
Mar 12, 2025
The Trump administration on Tuesday took a major step toward dismantling the U.S. Department of Education by firing roughly half of the agency's workforce, a decision that teachers' unions and other champions of public education said would have devastating consequences for the nation's school system.
The department, now led by billionaire Linda McMahon, moved swiftly, terminating more than 1,300 federal workers on Tuesday including employees at the agency's student aid and civil rights offices.
Sheria Smith, president of AFGE Local 252, which represents Education Department workers, pledged in a statement to "fight these draconian cuts." The union toldNPR minutes after the statement was issued that Smith, an attorney with the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights, was laid off.
The Education Department said the mass staffing cuts would affect "nearly 50%" of the agency's workforce and that those impacted "will be placed on administrative leave beginning Friday, March 21st."
In a press release, McMahon declared that the workforce cuts reflect the department's "commitment to efficiency, accountability, and ensuring that resources are directed where they matter most: to students, parents, and teachers."
But critics, including a union that represents more than 3 million education workers nationwide, said the firings underscore the Trump administration's commitment to gutting public education in the interest of billionaires pushing tax cuts and school privatization.
"Trump and Elon Musk have aimed their wrecking ball at public schools and the futures of the 50 million students in rural, suburban, and urban communities across America by dismantling public education to pay for tax handouts for billionaires," said Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association.
"The real victims will be our most vulnerable students," Pringle added. "Gutting the Department of Education will send class sizes soaring, cut job training programs, make higher education more expensive and out of reach for middle-class families, take away special education services for students with disabilities, and gut student civil rights protections."
"We will not sit by while billionaires like Elon Musk and Linda McMahon tear apart public services piece by piece."
Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, said in a statement that "denuding an agency so it cannot function effectively is the most cowardly way of dismantling it."
"The massive reduction in force at the Education Department is an attack on opportunity that will gut the agency and its ability to support students, throwing federal education programs into chaos across the country," she continued. "This move will directly impact the 90% of students who attend public schools by denying them the resources they need to thrive. That's why Americans squarely oppose eliminating the Education Department. We are urging Congress—and the courts—to step in to ensure all students can maintain access to a high-quality public education."
The Education Department purge came days after news broke that President Donald Trump was preparing an executive order aimed at completely shuttering the agency—a move that would legally require congressional approval.
Lee Saunders, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, said late Tuesday that the Education Department firings "are Project 2025 in action, and they have one goal—to make it easier for billionaires and anti-union extremists to give themselves massive tax breaks at the expense of working people."
"Today's announcement from the Department of Education is just the beginning of what's to come," Saunders warned. "These layoffs threaten the well-being and educational opportunities for millions of children across the country and those seeking higher education. The dedicated public service workers at public schools, colleges, and universities deserve better. Elections may have consequences, but we will not sit by while billionaires like Elon Musk and Linda McMahon tear apart public services piece by piece. We will keep speaking out and finding ways to fight back."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sanders Gets GOP Leader to Agree to Work On Medicare Covering Dental, Hearing, and Vision
The exchange on the Senate floor came after the Finance Committee chair blocked passage of the Vermont Independent's bill.
Mar 11, 2025
U.S. Senate Finance Committee Chair Mike Crapo on Tuesday blocked passage of Sen. Bernie Sanders' legislation to expand Medicare to cover dental, hearing, and vision care for tens of millions of American seniors, but the bill's sponsor got the panel leader to publicly agree to further discuss the issue.
Sanders (I-Vt.) took to the Senate floor Tuesday afternoon to ask for unanimous consent to pass the Medicare Dental, Hearing, and Vision Expansion Act, which is spearheaded in the House of Representatives by Congressman Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas).
"In the richest country in the history of the world, it is unacceptable that millions of seniors are unable to read because they can't afford eyeglasses, can't have conversations with their grandchildren because they can't afford hearing aids, and have trouble eating because they can't afford dentures," Sanders said in a statement.
"That should not be happening in the United States of America in the year 2025," he continued. "The time is long overdue for Congress to expand Medicare to include comprehensive coverage for the dental, vision, and hearing care that our seniors desperately need."
After Crapo (R-Idaho) rose to stop the bill from advancing, he and Sanders had a brief exchange in which the Republican agreed to working on achieving the "outcome" of the federal healthcare program covering dental, vision, and hearing.
In Sanders' remarks on the Senate floor about his bill, he sounded the alarm about efforts by President Donald Trump, billionaire Elon Musk, and congressional Republicans to cut government healthcare programs and Social Security.
"Yeah, we have more nuclear weapons than any other country, we have more billionaires than any other country, but we also have one of the highest rates of senior poverty of any country on Earth. We might want to get our priorities right," said Sanders, who has long fought for achieving universal healthcare in the United States via his Medicare for All legislation.
"While my Republican colleagues would like to make massive cuts to Medicaid in order to provide more tax breaks to billionaires, some of us have a better idea," he said. "We think that it makes more sense to substantially improve the lives of our nation's seniors by expanding Medicare to cover dental, vision, and hearing benefits."
To pay for his expansion plan, Sanders calls for ensuring that Medicare pays no more for prescription drugs than the Department of Veterans Affairs and addressing the tens of billions of dollars that privately administered Medicare Advantage plans overcharge the federal government annually.
In a statement about the bill, Doggett highlighted that "this expanded care could help prevent cognitive impairment and dementia, worsened chronic disease, and imbalance leading to falls with deadly consequences. This is an essential step to fulfilling the original promise of Medicare—to assure dignity and health for all."
Welcoming their renewed push for Medicare expansion, Public Citizen healthcare advocate Eagan Kemp declared that "at the same time Trump and his cronies in Congress try to rip healthcare away from millions and push for further privatization of Medicare, Sen. Sanders and Rep. Doggett are showing what one of our top priorities in healthcare should be—improving traditional Medicare."
"The introduction of this legislation is an important step to ensure Medicare enrollees can access the care they need, and we hope that Congress will act quickly to pass these commonsense reforms," Kemp added. "Healthcare is a human right."
Earlier Tuesday, in anticipation of Crapo's committee holding a confirmation hearing for Dr. Mehmet Oz, the former television host Trump has nominated to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, Public Citizen released a research brief about the hundreds of millions of dollars Medicare Advantage companies have spent on lobbying.
"If Oz is confirmed as the CMS administrator," Kemp warned, "attacks on traditional Medicare are likely to move into overdrive."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Lifts Ukraine Aid Pause After Kyiv Agrees to Cease-Fire Proposal
Ukraine's foreign minister called the endorsement a "step that proves Ukraine is ready to move forward on the path to a just end to the war."
Mar 11, 2025
The Trump administration said Tuesday that it would resume military aid to and intelligence-sharing with Ukraine after that country's leadership endorsed a U.S. proposal for a 30-day cease-fire in the war defending against Russia's three-year invasion and occupation.
The Washington Postreports that U.S., Ukrainian, and Saudi officials met for eight hours on Tuesday in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. No Russian officials were present at the negotiations.
"We're going to tell them this is what's on the table. Ukraine is ready to stop shooting and start talking," U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said after the meeting. "And now it'll be up to them to say yes or no. If they say no, then we'll unfortunately know what the impediment is to peace here."
Ukraine has agreed to a 30 day ceasefire. Incredible work by Trump team. Now if Russia agrees, Trump may have gotten cease fires in the Middle East and Europe in his first 60 days. Nobel Peace Prize worthy: pic.twitter.com/lYogXVP8wj
— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) March 11, 2025
White House National Security Adviser Michael Waltz said following the talks that "the Ukrainian delegation today made something very clear, that they share President [Donald] Trump's vision for peace, they share his determination to end the fighting, to end the killing, to end the tragic meat grinder of people."
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha called his country's endorsement of the cease-fire proposal a "step that proves Ukraine is ready to move forward on the path to a just end to the war."
"Ukraine is not an obstacle to peace; it is a partner in its restoration," Sybiha added.
U.S. officials said the cease-fire proposal will now be sent to Russia for approval. It is unclear whether Russian President Vladimir Putin will accept the offer.
"The ball is now in their court," Rubio said of the Russians.
Buoyed by Western support but stretched thin and vastly outmanned and outgunned, Ukrainian forces have been struggling to repel Russia's invasion and hold Russian territory they seized in the Kursk region, with an eye toward potential future territorial exchanges.
On Tuesday, Ukrainian forces launched a massive drone attack on Moscow. Three people were reportedly killed and six others were injured when debris struck a meat processing facility.
Tuesday's development marked a dramatic turnaround from just two weeks ago, when Trump and Vice President JD Vance lambasted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a highly contentious White House meeting that was followed by a suspension of all U.S. military assistance and intelligence-sharing with Kyiv.
The U.S. has "provided $66.5 billion in military assistance since Russia launched its premeditated, unprovoked, and brutal full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, and approximately $69.2 billion in military assistance since Russia's initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014," according to a State Department fact sheet dated March 4.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular