�Թϲ�����

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to move forward with plans to deny green cards to immigrants who are thought to be likely to make even occasional and minor use of public benefits like Medicaid, food stamps and housing vouchers. The vote was 5 to 4, with the court’s conservative justices in the majority. The court’s brief order gave no reasons for lifting preliminary injunctions that had blocked the new program. Challenges to the program will continue to move forward in courts around the nation. (Liptak, 1/27)

The justices' order came by a 5-4 vote and reversed a ruling from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York that had kept in place a nationwide hold on the policy following lawsuits against it. The court's four liberal justices, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, voted to prevent the policy from taking effect. (Sherman, 1/27)

In imposing an injunction blocking it, Manhattan-based U.S. District Judge George Daniels on Oct. 11 called the rule "repugnant to the American Dream" and a "policy of exclusion in search of a justification." The administration asked the high court to let the rule go into effect even before the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules on Trump's appeal of the injunction. The 2nd Circuit is considering the matter on an expedited basis, with legal papers to be submitted by Feb. 14 and arguments expected soon afterward. (Chung, 1/27)

Under the new policy, immigrants would be suspect if they are in the United States legally and use public benefits — such as Medicaid, food stamps or housing assistance — too often or are deemed likely to someday rely on them. The new criteria provide “positive” and “negative” factors for immigration officials to weigh as they decide on green-card applications. Negative factors include if a person is unemployed, dropped out of high school or is not fluent in English. Immigrant groups have protested the rules and denounced the Supreme Court’s action. “It’s a sad day in America when the U.S. Supreme Court affirms a completely discriminatory policy that measures the worth of a person — not by the strength of his or her character — but by the size of the person’s bank account,” said a statement from the National Partnership for New Americans. (Barnes and Sacchetti, 1/27)

The government has long had authority to block immigrants who were likely to become public charges, but the term has never been formally defined. The DHS proposed to fill that void, adding noncash benefits and such factors as age, financial resources, employment history, education and health. (Williams, 1/27)

For decades, the U.S. has asked most green card and visa petitioners to prove they won't be a "public charge" on the country, but the new rule scraps Clinton-era guidance that said only the use of cash benefits could be analyzed by immigration caseworkers. The Trump administration has defended the new restrictions as a way to ensure immigrants are "self-sufficient." But opponents believe the policy is an attempt by the White House to circumvent laws passed by Congress by instituting what's essentially a "wealth test" designed to limit the immigration of poorer people from developing countries. (Montoya-Galvez, 1/27)

Several federal judges had blocked the ban from taking effect, including U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton of Oakland. In an injunction in October covering California, three other states and the District of Columbia, Hamilton said the use of public benefits “improves public health and welfare” and noted that congressional Republicans had proposed to add an identical restriction to a 1996 immigration bill, but dropped it when President Bill Clinton threatened a veto. (Egelko, 1/27)

The White House called the court’s order a “massive win for American taxpayers, American workers and the American Constitution. This decision allows the government to implement regulations effectuating longstanding federal law that newcomers to this country must be financially self-sufficient.” (Kendall and Hackman, 1/27)

New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) said on Monday that she is still working to put a permanent end to the rule. “Generations of immigrants have come to this country with little more than a dream in their pockets, but the president’s Public Charge Rule is an egregious attempt to infringe upon the values of our nation," James said in a statement. "We have already received a favorable decision in the district court and are continuing our fight against the Trump Administration in the Court of Appeals.” (Neidig, 1/27)

Leaders of many healthcare organizations, including the American Hospital Association, America's Essential Hospitals, the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Academy of Pediatrics, have warned that the rule will hurt public health efforts and reduce providers' ability to serve millions of low-income children and families. They point to evidence that fear created by the proposal already has reduced participation in health programs. (Cohrs, 1/27)

Officials in Connecticut and other Democratic states were dealt a blow Monday when the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to press ahead with a rule that makes it more difficult for immigrants to obtain a green card if they have used – or are likely to use – public benefits such as food stamps or Medicaid. The court’s justices voted 5 to 4 in favor of lifting preliminary injunctions that had blocked the regulations. Challenges to the new rule, known as the “public charge,” will proceed in courts around the nation. (Carlesso, 1/27)