In Department of Homeland Security v. New York the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether the Trump administration’s “public charge” definition violates the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) or is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). A factor relevant to whether a non-citizen may become a lawful permanent resident is whether they are likely to become a “public charge” - a term not defined in the INA. Since 1999, federal rules considered four “cash” public benefits with a 2019 final rule adding the criteria of “non-cash” benefits used for more than 12 months in any 36-month period. Three states, New York City, and a number of nonprofits sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) arguing the definition violates the INA and is arbitrary and capricious under the APA. The Second Circuit affirmed the federal district court’s preliminary ruling against DHS. It is now before the Supreme Court. To read a recap of the case, click below.