Trump loses lawsuit over public aid restrictions for migrants

The Donald Trump appointee sided with a group of states that sued the government over a rule requiring broad citizenship checks for access to federal aid.(CN) — A federal judge on Monday handed the Trump administration another loss in its litigation over a change that would have booted immigrants in the United States off of federally funded services like Head Start schools and food banks.In a 25-page order, U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy issued a permanent injunction on behalf of a coalition of Democratic states, who said the government’s move to demand proof of citizenship for these public assistance programs could broadly discourage their use. McElroy, a Donald Trump appointee in the District of Rhode Island, found the government violated the Administrative Procedure Act with this new policy.The dispute centers around the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which prohibits some noncitizens from receiving certain benefits like Medicaid, but does not demand citizenship checks for other programs that are available to all.“Beginning in July 2025, these agencies took an about-face by issuing new notices that purport to reinterpret PRWORA as applying to a swath of federal programs that had previously been excluded,” McElroy wrote in Monday’s order.Under the changes, states would be required to verify citizenship before the use of virtually all federally funded aid programs, or risk losing federal funding for those services altogether. The policy also applied to people in the country legally, like those with student visas.“Chaos has predictably followed,” the states claim in their50-page lawsuit against the government, filed in July 2025. “Almost overnight, states and their subgrantees faced the threat of enforcement if they could not dramatically restructure crucial components of their social safety nets to comply with defendants’ new dictates.”McElroy issued a preliminary injunction against the government this past September, blasting it for rushing the new requirements “without seeking comment from the public or interested parties,” as is required under the Administrative Procedure Act.“The government’s new policy, across the board, seems to be this: ‘Show me your papers,” McElroy wrote in the scathing ruling.She agreed with the states’ assessment that this would drastically reduce the number of people looking to capitalize on these vital services, acknowledging that “generally, people living in poverty at times lack government identification.”Since then, the government has agreed to rescind the changes until undertaking the required notice-and-comment rulemaking process, pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act. Doing so, the government argued, should moot the states’ case against it.McElroy disagreed.“It cannot be said that defendants have shown that the conduct challenged by plaintiffs ‘cannot be reasonably expected to recur,’” the judge wrote in her Monday ruling.She declared the rule change unlawful and ordered it set aside and vacated.“Defendants are enjoined from implementing or enforcing the PRWORA notices or the interpretations contained therein against plaintiffs by any other means,” she added.However, she left the door open for the government to promulgate new rules related to the act after a period of notice-and-comment rulemaking. McElroy noted the government has not yet stated whether that process has begun, however.Representatives for the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education and the Department of Labor — all listed as defendants in the lawsuit, as well as their heads — didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.The scrutinized rule change was issued via an executive order signed by President Trump on Feb. 19, 2025. Titled “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders,” the order redefines many federal programs as restricted “federal public benefits,” now subject to immigration verification.The states’ lawsuit is part of a laundry list of litigation against the Trump administration, which continues to test the limits of executive power with unprecedented cuts and funding changes to longstanding federal programs. Federal courts across the country have largely decried its efforts to weigh in on this kind of resource allocation, a duty historically set aside for Congress.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads