Dept. of Homeland Sec. v. New York

1. Whether entities that are not subject to the public-charge ground of inadmissibility contained in 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(A), and which seek to expand benefits usage by aliens who are potentially subject to that provision, are proper parties to challenge the final rule. 2. Whether the final rule is likely contrary to law or arbitrary and capricious.

Petitioner issued an administrative rule interpreting a clause of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) making an alien inadmissible if the alien is “likely at any time to become a public charge.” 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(A). Respondents challenged the rule arguing the definition of public charge, as interpreted by the administrative rule, is not an allowable construction of the INA. The district court issued a preliminary injunction against implementation of the rule and the Second Circuit affirmed. Petitioner argues that Respondents are not the proper plaintiffs to bring a challenge to DHS’s construction of the public charge inadmissibility provision. Petitioner contends that the circuit split about both the rule’s legality and the particular grounds it might be unlawful calls for the Court’s resolution. Even apart from the circuit split, petitioner argues, that, if allowed to stand, the lower court’s decision “would result in irreparable harm to the United States and the public.”