Amy Howe

Apr 20 2020

Government responds to request for temporary hold on “public charge” rule due to pandemic

Last week a group of state and local governments, led by New York, asked the Supreme Court to temporarily block the government from implementing the “public charge” rule governing the admission of immigrants to the United States. The motion followed a January ruling by a divided Supreme Court that granted a request by the Trump administration for permission to enforce the rule while the government appeals a pair of orders by a federal district court in New York. Today the Trump administration responded to New York’s motion, urging the justices to deny it.

In asking the justices to put a temporary hold on the implementation of the public charge rule, New York and the other challengers argued last week that the rule is “impeding efforts to stop the spread of the coronavirus, preserve scarce hospital capacity and medical supplies, and protect the lives of everyone in our communities—citizens and noncitizens alike.” The government pushed back against that argument sharply today. In a filing signed by U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco, the government emphasized that the court’s decision to allow it to enforce the rule while litigation is pending reflected the court’s view that the challenges to the rule are not likely to succeed. New York is not arguing, the government pointed out, “that the current public-health crisis has any bearing on that assessment, and they do not ask this Court to revisit it.” Instead, the government continued, New York wants the justices to act based on their “assessment of how the Executive Branch should best respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Such a request, the government suggested, is extraordinary, particularly because the government “has moved aggressively to address the current public-health emergency,” including by making clear that the use of publicly funded health care related to COVID-19 – “including testing, treatment, preventive care, and vaccinations” – “will not be considered in making predictions about whether” immigrants may become overly reliant on public benefits in the future. New York’s “attempt to discount that guidance is more than incorrect,” the government told the justices; “it is unhelpful by creating confusion about the Rule and the government’s COVID-19 response in an effort to advance this litigation.” Indeed, the government added later in the filing, to the extent that immigrants and their family members are not seeking testing or treatment for COVID-19, the problem is not the public charge rule itself but “mistaken beliefs” about the rule, and New York “should address that problem by helping to correct those misunderstandings – not by filing motions that, if anything, only reinforce them.”

This post is also published on SCOTUSblog.

Amy L Howe
Until September 2016, Amy served as the editor and reporter for SCOTUSblog, a blog devoted to coverage of the Supreme Court of the United States; she continues to serve as an independent contractor and reporter for SCOTUSblog. Before turning to full-time blogging, she served as counsel in over two dozen merits cases at the Supreme Court and argued two cases there. From 2004 until 2011, she co-taught Supreme Court litigation at Stanford Law School; from 2005 until 2013, she co-taught a similar class at Harvard Law School. She has also served as an adjunct professor at American University’s Washington College of Law and Vanderbilt Law School. Amy is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and holds a master’s degree in Arab Studies and a law degree from Georgetown University.
Tweets by @AHoweBlogger
Recent ScotusBlog Posts from Amy
  • Court rules for deaf student in education-law case
  • Parties disagree over court’s power to reach decision in election law case
  • Justices throw out lower-court ruling allowing state court clerk to be sued in parental notification abortion case
More from Amy Howe

Recent Posts

  • Court rules for deaf student in education-law case
  • Parties disagree over court’s power to reach decision in election law case
  • Justices throw out lower-court ruling allowing state court clerk to be sued in parental notification abortion case
  • Justices decline to halt execution of Texas man with intellectual disability claim
  • Justices take up case on federal admiralty law, seek government’s views on two pending petitions
Site built and optimized by Sound Strategies