|
This week’s newsletter discusses lawsuits against a new public charge rule that would put noncitizens at risk of immigration consequences as well as updates and new lawsuits related to vaccines. You can find our archived newsletters here.
States Challenge New Federal Public Charge Rule
In New York et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al. (Docket No. 1:26-cv-07978, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York), New York and 21 other states and the District of Columbia sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) over a new federal public charge rule. Filed on September 14, four days before the rule took effect, the states ask the court to declare the rule unlawful and set it aside. The states argue that DHS has discarded meaningful guidelines on how immigration officers may decide whether a person is likely to become a “public charge,” putting noncitizens and their families at risk of immigration consequences for using benefits for which they are legally eligible.
The 2026 public charge rule allows the federal government to deny admission or lawful permanent residence to certain noncitizens who are likely to become primarily dependent on government support, or a “public charge.” Congress first included a public charge provision in federal immigration law in 1882. In 1999, federal guidance generally limited the inquiry to people primarily dependent on government cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term, government-funded institutional care. The first Trump administration’s changed the rule in 2019 to expand the inquiry to include use of certain non-cash benefits, including Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and housing assistance for more than 12 months in a 36-month period. In 2022, under Biden, the federal government returned to the narrower 1999 approach, excluding routine use of health, food, and housing programs from the determination.
The 2026 final rule rescinds the 2022 regulations. According to the states, the rule and guidance provide no clear guidelines on the information officers may consider, allowing them to weigh nearly any public benefit used for any length of time. The complaint gives the example of a noncitizen parent whose green-card application could be affected by a U.S.-citizen child’s use of state health insurance or free school meals. The states argue that the new policy departs from the long-standing understanding of public charge and that families will be left to choose between using assistance they need and pursuing lawful permanent residence.
The states bring claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, arguing that DHS exceeded its authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act and acted arbitrarily by failing to consider the rule’s effects, alternatives, and states’ reliance on the previous policy. They also argue that USCIS’s policy guidance functions as a legislative rule and should have gone through notice-and-comment rulemaking. The complaint predicts that disenrollment would reduce federal funding to states, increase administrative costs, and make it harder for residents to access preventive care and nutrition assistance. It cites federal estimates that the rule could cost states $4.05 billion annually in Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program funding and more than $1 billion in annual SNAP funding.
New York City and other local governments filed a separate challenge to DHS’s 2026 rule, and four non-profits similarly filed a challenge against the new rule in Make the Road New York v. DHS. All three cases have been informally consolidated before Judge Ronnie Abrams. We will continue to provide updates on this case.
Vaccine Litigation Updates
We covered Le Soleil Child Care, LLC, et al. v. Raúl Labrador, et al. (Docket No. 1:25-cv-00695; U.S. District Court, District of Idaho) in our January 16 newsletter. This case challenges the Idaho Medical Freedom Act (IMFA), which prohibits private daycares from requiring any “medical interventions” as a condition of attendance or employment. On September 22, the defendant's motion to dismiss was granted by the district court judge. In granting this motion, the judge agreed with Idaho’s interpretation of the law and held that the IMFA was not unconstitutionally vague as plaintiffs had claimed. The plaintiff daycare and parents are considering appealing to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
We covered Perry v. Marteney (Docket No. 24-2132, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit) in our May 8 newsletter. In this case, plaintiff parents filed a lawsuit on behalf of their daughter arguing that West Virginia’s lack of religious exemptions for vaccines violates their First Amendment right to religious freedom. Plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court on September 4. At this time, no update on the case is available from the Supreme Court, but the petition could be granted at any time during this Supreme Court term. In addition, a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court was filed on September 28 in Miller v. McDonald (Docket No. 24-681), which we covered in our July 24 newsletter. This lawsuit is challenging the New York Legislature’s decision to bar religious exemptions to school vaccination requirements.
Additional Vaccine Litigation
In We the Patriots USA, Inc and Childs v. Makin and Medd (Docket No. 2:26-cv-00369-S; U.S. District Court, District of Maine) plaintiffs, a parent and We the Patriots, (the organization the parent is a member of) filed suit on July 16, 2026, alleging violations of the Free Exercise Clause tied to Maine’s 2019 legislative act that removed religious exemptions to the state’s vaccine requirements beginning in 2021. The plaintiff father claims a religious objection to vaccinating his child that developed between 2020 and 2021 in response to fears that vaccines may use cell lines from aborted fetuses. Prior to plaintiff's son entering the seventh grade, he was vaccinated in accordance with the requirements in Maine. Plaintiff had never claimed nor received a religious exemption for vaccination prior to the 2019 bill taking effect in 2021. On August 12, 2026, plaintiffs filed for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction enjoining the state as to all members of We the Patriots.
Plaintiffs argue that the Maine law was not neutral and generally applicable because it allowed for several categories of exemptions including medical exemptions, a 90-day grace period, and students who had an existing Individual Education Plan (IEP) that had requested religious exemptions prior to September 1, 2021. Plaintiffs’ argument is that these exemptions make the law no longer fit the “neutral and generally applicable” standard that was set by the Supreme Court in Employment Division v. Smith and therefore strict scrutiny, the most difficult standard for a law to meet, should be applied when analyzing the Maine law.
The court denied the motions for a TRO and a preliminary injunction on September 8, 2026. The court expressed doubt that the allowed exemptions would defeat the law's neutrality and general applicability since the exemptions are targeted to discrete and limited groups (in the case of IEP exemptions) or serve the underlying state interest in health and safety (in the case of medical exemptions or 90-day grace periods).
In Spillane v. Lamont (Docket No. FST-CV22-6056249-S, Connecticut Superior Court), t the court dismissed the final claim in a challenge to Connecticut’s repeal of religious exemptions to school vaccination requirements. Two parents first filed the suit in 2022, arguing that the 2021 repeal of religious exemptions violated their rights under the state and federal constitutions and the Connecticut Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The families’ older children had received religious exemptions before the law changed, but their younger children did not qualify for the exemption. The plaintiffs objected to vaccinating their children in part because they believe some vaccines were developed using cell lines derived from aborted fetal tissue.
Connecticut had allowed religious exemptions to school vaccination requirements since 1959. In 2021, the legislature passed Public Act 21-6, prospectively eliminating the religious exemption while retaining medical exemptions and allowing students who already had religious exemptions to continue attending school. The change followed a rise in religious exemptions among kindergarten students between the 2012–13 and 2019–20 school years. Although the state’s overall school vaccination rate remained above the 95 percent level recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, state officials cited the increasing exemption rate as a concern.
The Connecticut Supreme Court’s 2024 decision dismissed five of the six claims, including the constitutional challenges. The court remanded the RFRA claim back to Superior Court, holding that the state could be sued under RFRA for equitable relief and that the 2021 law had not repealed the RFRA.
In April, Governor Ned Lamont signed Public Act 26-3, which amended Connecticut’s RFRA to specify that it does not apply to immunization requirements for public and private schools. The amendment applies to civil actions already pending when it took effect, including Spillane. The state argued that the change removed the basis for the plaintiffs’ last remaining claim, and the court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss on September 14th.
The dismissal leaves the vaccine requirements in place without a religious exemption. The plaintiffs’ attorney had not announced whether they would appeal.
| 
