Less than a week after being sued by the federal government over illegal immigration, Hawai‘i has returned fire with its own immigration lawsuit.
Last week, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a complaint against the state over an administrative rule allowing illegal immigrants to receive in-state tuition benefits at the University of Hawai‘i, which the suit alleged was a violation of federal law.
That suit remains pending, but on Tuesday, Hawai‘i joined more than 20 other states in suing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security over proposed changes to laws allowing noncitizens to be eligible for public benefits.
This suit revolves around the definition of the phrase “public charge”: in the context of immigration laws, a noncitizens could be denied entry to or permanent residence in the county if they were deemed likely to become a “public charge,” or someone unable to support themselves who would likely become dependent upon public benefits.
In 2019, during President Donald Trump’s first administration, the federal government redefined “public charge” as “an alien who receives one or more public benefits … for more than 12 months in the aggregate within any 36-month period.”
In 2022, during the administration of President Joe Biden, the definition was reverted to be closer to the original definition; in July, DHS passed a rule re-reverting the definition to that from 2019.
This sequence of events — in which laws have ping-ponged between two different forms between the Trump and Biden administrations — mirrors another pair of suits between Hawai‘i and the federal government concerning endangered species protections.
According to this latest suit, the DHS has asserted that the changes are necessary in order to be more consistent with other laws concerning public charges.
The plaintiffs, meanwhile, argued that a “public charge” has had a well-known legal definition for more than a century and that DHS hasn’t provided a compelling reason to change it. Consequently, the suit argues that DHS’ decision to change the law was arbitrary and capricious and therefore outside the department’s authority.
The plaintiffs also argue that DHS’ decision will have wider impacts beyond immigrants. The suit speculates that many people will choose to disenroll in programs like Medicaid or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for fear of being determined a public charge, which could lead to an overall reduction in federal funding for those programs, impacting remaining users.
The suit alleges that DHS itself has predicted that the rule change will reduce federal payments to states’ Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Programs by about $4.05 billion annually, and SNAP funding by more than $1 billion annually.
The suit concludes by urging the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to vacate the new DHS rule and declare it unlawful.
The case remains pending.
For the latest news of Hawai‘i, sign up here for our free Daily Edition newsletter.
