Federal Judge in Oakland Could Partially Block Trump Rule Targeting Low-Income Immigrants

Lawyers for San Francisco and Santa Clara counties, the state of California and other plaintiffs tried to persuade a federal judge in Oakland Wednesday to block a Trump administration rule that would deny green cards to immigrants who use public benefits such as Medi-Cal, food stamps and housing vouchers.

The plaintiffs — who also include immigrant service providers, the states of Oregon, Maine and Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia — say the "public charge" rule would cause them irreparable harm, forcing local governments to spend more to protect public health and increasing the likelihood of communicable disease outbreaks because fearful immigrants stop seeking medical care.

U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton signaled that she would decide on whether to block the rule before Oct. 15, when it is set to go into effect.

But she chided the plaintiffs for failing to make a strong case — in legal briefs or in court — that a nationwide injunction is needed. And she stressed that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last month struck down another judge’s nationwide injunction on a federal asylum restriction.

"You are requesting [this] without giving me the kind of road map that I think the 9th Circuit requires to enter a nationwide injunction,” Hamilton said. “It leads me to believe that you’re not really serious about me granting this if you haven’t addressed the issue.”

Plaintiffs’ attorneys responded that if the policy is blocked in only some states, it would create a confusing patchwork of regulation.

“Anything short of a nationwide injunction will leave our residents confused, scared and ultimately chilled from [using] these benefits,” said San Francisco Deputy City Attorney Matthew Goldberg.

Attorneys for the Trump administration, meanwhile, told the judge that the public charge rule is also being challenged in Chicago, New York, Spokane and elsewhere, and a nationwide ruling would interfere with those courts reaching their own decisions.

Wednesday’s hearing centered in part on what the term “public charge” actually means.

U.S. Department of Justice lawyers argued that the new rule is in keeping with long-standing federal policy that requires immigrants to be self-sufficient in order to be granted legal permanent residence (known as a green card) — a path to eventual citizenship.

DOJ Deputy Assistant Attorney General Ethan Davis said the definition of public charge can include “any maintenance or public assistance from public funds.”

But plaintiffs argued that for more than 100 years, the government only considered someone a public charge if they had “primary dependence” on the government for survival, including people considered “paupers” and “lunatics.” They said the new rule improperly sweeps in immigrants who accept as little as $180 worth of non-cash assistance — including services such as health care that could actually help them work and become self-sufficient.

The states and counties also said they could lose millions of dollars in federal funds if immigrants drop out of Medicaid (known in California as Medi-Cal) for fear of jeopardizing their chance at a green card. San Francisco stands to lose $7.5 million a year and Santa Clara County $4.6 million, said Goldberg, but that doesn’t mean local governments will stop providing health services or nutrition assistance to local residents.

“We have a proprietary interest in the public health in our communities,” Goldberg said. “We have legal obligations to provide medical care to people who are uninsured.”

Arguing for the Trump administration, Davis countered that if local governments take a hit, it’s because they choose to spend their own funds on social services.

“They may spend more money on food pantries and the like, but that’s not a required consequence of the rule,” Davis said.

He added that losses by the plaintiffs are “highly speculative.”

But Goldberg said immigrants are already giving up public benefits.

“It’s the preferred outcome of the rule, the purpose of the rule,” he said.

Hamilton suggested she might block the public charge rule, but more narrowly than the plaintiffs requested. She called on both parties to submit additional briefs by Oct. 7 proposing a more limited ruling.

“Assuming I don’t issue a nationwide injunction and assuming I do think it should be enjoined,” she said, “I’d like to hear from both sides on what an injunction should look like.”

KQED's Farida Jhabvala Romero contributed to this report.