Originally Published in the San Francisco Chronicle
Bob Egelko - April 12, 2021
Over a conservative judge’s angry dissent, a federal appeals court refused Thursday to let a group of Republican-led states try to revive a Trump administration rule that denied legal status and work permits to noncitizens who accept public benefits, such as food stamps and Medicaid.
The 2019 “public charge” rule was challenged in lawsuits by San Francisco and Santa Clara County, joined later by California, 17 other states and the District of Columbia. A federal judge in Oakland and courts in other states halted enforcement of the rule, but the Supreme Court reinstated it in January 2020 while the legal challenges continued.
But President Biden’s administration announced March 9 that it was repealing the rule, and the Supreme Court rescinded its order. The action was challenged, however, by 14 states with Republican leaders, who argued that the administration had failed to follow procedures for changing federal rules or to allow any time for public comment on the turnaround.
On Thursday, a panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco voted 2-1 to refuse to let the 14 states intervene in the case. The majority, Judges Mary Schroeder and William Fletcher, issued a one-sentence order without stating reasons, but drew a strongly worded 28-page dissent from Judge Lawrence VanDyke, an appointee of former President Donald Trump.
Calling the Biden administration’s attack on the former rule a “synchronized blitzkrieg,” VanDyke said the government’s actions were apparently intended to make sure “not only that the rule was gone faster than toilet paper in a pandemic, but that it could effectively never, ever be resurrected, even by a future administration.”
“Now that the federal government has abandoned the field, only the states themselves can present their arguments in favor of the rule,” he said, accusing the new administration of colluding with Democratic-led local and state governments that opposed the Trump administration’s changes.
But VanDyke said the Supreme Court could use its authority to revive the case and require the Biden administration to go through the normal rule-making process, reinstating the former rule for many months if not longer. Proper legal procedures will be restored, he said, “once the Supreme Court makes clear that our dirty slate must be wiped clean.”
Schroeder was appointed by President Jimmy Carter, and Fletcher by President Bill Clinton.
The dispute involves the meaning of a 19th century law denying legal residency to immigrants who were a “public charge” or likely to become one.
Previous administrations defined the term to cover a relatively small number of immigrants who drew a certain portion of their income from government sources, such as welfare or Social Security, or who received long-term care at government expense.
Trump’s administration reinterpreted the law to cover anyone who has received non-cash benefits, such as food stamps, Medicaid or a low-income housing voucher, for at least a year. In addition, federal officials could consider a variety of “negative” factors — low income, old age, a large family, the inability to speak English or the acceptance of benefits for any period — to classify immigrants as public charges.
Out of 544,000 legal immigrants who apply for green cards each year, the Trump administration said 382,000 would be covered by the new rule and would have to submit forms showing their ability to support themselves. The policy also allowed immigration officials to prevent noncitizens from entering the United States on visas issued to students, employees or tourists if they decided the newcomers were likely to use public benefits.
In one of the decisions blocking the rule, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton of Oakland said the use of public benefits “improves public health and welfare” and noted that congressional Republicans had dropped plans to add identical restrictions to a 1996 immigration bill.
But VanDyke said Thursday that most people would believe that “being overly reliant on the government to meet your needs ... makes one a public charge.”
Bob Egelko is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: begelko@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @BobEgelko
Leave a Reply