Cook Cnty. v. Wolf
| Decision Date | 10 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 19-3169,19-3169 |
| Parties | COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Chad F. WOLF, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, et al., Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Juan C. Arguello, Steven A. Levy, David E. Morrison, A. Colin Wexler, Takayuki Ono, Attorneys, Goldberg Kohn LTD., Chicago, IL, Lauren Elizabeth Miller, Jessica M. Scheller, Attorneys, Office of the Cook County State's Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee Cook County, Illinois.
Meghan P. Carter, Caroline Chapman, Nanshelmun Dashan, Attorneys, Legal Council for Health Justice, Chicago, IL, Tacy Fletcher Flint, David A. Gordon, Marlow Svatek, Attorneys, Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL, Robert Velevis, Attorney, Sidley Austin LLP, Dallas, TX, Militza M. Pagan, Katherine Elizabeth Walz, Attorneys, Shriver Center on Poverty Law, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights.
Joshua Dos Santos, Gerard Sinzdak, Daniel Tenny, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Washington, DC, Joshua M. Kolsky, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellants.
Mark Steven Venezia, Attorney, Immigration Reform Law Institute, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae Immigration Reform Law Institute.
Alanna Peterson, Attorney, Pacifica Law Group, Seattle, WA, for Amicus Curiae Nonprofit Anti-Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Organizations.
Laurie Carr Mims, Attorney, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Amicus Curiae National Housing Law Project.
Elizabeth B. Wydra, Attorney, Constitutional Accountability Center, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae Legal Historians.
Ariel Claire Nelson, Attorney, National Consumer Law Center, Boston, MA, for Amicus Curiae National Consumer Law Center, Incorporated.
Matthew J. Owens, Attorney, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, Chicago, IL, Kristyn DeFilipp, Attorney, Foley Hoag LLP, Boston, MA, for Amicus Curiae Health Law Advocates.
Harry Lee, Attorney, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae Immigration Law Professors.
Sadik Harry Huseny, Attorney, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Amicus Curiae Fiscal Policy Institute.
Douglas Neal Letter, William E. Havemann, Attorneys, United States House of Representatives, Office of General Counsel, Washington, DC, Robert Mark Loeb, Attorney, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae United States House of Representatives.
Benna Ruth Solomon, Attorney, City of Chicago Law Department, Chicago, IL, for Amicus Curiae City of Chicago.
Priyamvada Arora, Esq., Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Susan Krumplitsch, Attorney, DLA Piper LLP (US), East Palo Alto, CA, for Amici Curiae American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, American College of Physicians, and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
Kyle A. Virgien, Charles F. Sprague, Attorneys, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA, Tyce R. Walters, Attorney, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae American Civil Liberties Union.
Before Wood, Chief Judge, and Rovner and Barrett, Circuit Judges.
Like most people, immigrants to the United States would like greater prosperity for themselves and their families. Nonetheless, it can take time to achieve the American Dream, and the path is not always smooth. Recognizing this, Congress has chosen to make immigrants eligible for various public benefits; state and local governments have done the same. Those benefits include subsidized health insurance, supplemental nutrition benefits, and housing assistance. Historically, with limited exceptions, temporary receipt of these supplemental benefits did not jeopardize an immigrant's chances of one day adjusting his status to that of a legal permanent resident or a citizen.
Recently, however, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a new rule designed to prevent immigrants whom the Executive Branch deems likely to receive public assistance in any amount, at any point in the future, from entering the country or adjusting their immigration status. The Rule purports to implement the "public-charge" provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(4). States, cities, and nonprofit groups across the country have filed suits seeking to overturn the Rule.
Cook County, Illinois, and the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, Inc. (ICIRR) brought one of those cases in the Northern District of Illinois. They immediately sought a preliminary injunction against the Rule pending the outcome of the litigation. Finding that the criteria for interim relief were satisfied, the district court granted their motion. We conclude that at least Cook County adequately established its right to bring its claim and that the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting preliminary injunctive relief. We therefore affirm.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA, or "the Act") provides that a noncitizen may be denied admission or adjustment of status if she "is likely at any time to become a public charge." 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(4)(A). The statute does not define the term "public charge," nor has it ever done so. Instead, the Act calls for a "totality-of-the-circumstances" analysis, though it singles out several factors to be considered "at a minimum": age; health; family status; assets, resources, and financial status; education and skills; and any affidavit of support under section 1183a. Id. § 1182(a)(4)(B). The statute does not specify how officials should weigh the listed factors and any others that appear to be relevant.
On August 14, 2019, following a notice and comment period, DHS issued a rule interpreting this provision. In it, DHS defines as a "public charge" any noncitizen (with some exceptions) who receives certain cash and noncash government benefits for more than "12 months" in the aggregate in a 36-month period. Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds, 84 Fed. Reg. 41292–508 (Aug. 14, 2019) ("Rule"). It applies to all legally admitted immigrants; we are not concerned here with those in the country unlawfully. The Rule is not limited to federal benefits; instead, it sweeps in any federal, state, local, or tribal cash assistance for income maintenance; Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits; most forms of Medicaid; Section 8 Housing Assistance under the Housing Choice Voucher Program; Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance; and certain other forms of subsidized housing. Id. at 41295, 41501. Each benefit received, no matter how small, is counted separately and stacked, such that receipt of multiple benefits in one month is considered receipt of multiple months’ worth of benefits. Id. at 41295. For example, an immigrant who receives any amount of SNAP benefits, Medicaid, and housing assistance, and nothing else for four months in a three-year period, will be considered a public charge and likely denied adjustment of status. The stacking rule means that a person can use up her "12 months" of benefits in a far shorter time than a quick reading of the Rule would indicate.
The Rule also explains what facts DHS will consider with respect to an applicant's age, health, family status, financial status, and education and skills. Id. at 41502–04. "Heavily weighted negative factors" include the following: lack of current employment or reasonable prospect of future employment; previous receipt or approval for receipt of 12 months’ worth of public benefits in a three-year period; diagnosis of a medical condition that is likely to require extensive medical treatment or institutionalization or that will interfere with the ability to provide for oneself, attend school, or work, along with lack of insurance and no prospect of obtaining private health insurance, and insufficient financial resources to pay for reasonably foreseeable medical costs related to such medical condition; and prior determination of inadmissibility or deportability on public-charge grounds. Id. at 41504.
The "heavily weighted positive factors" are exclusively monetary. They include the following: a household income, assets, resources, or support amounting to at least 250 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines for the household size; current employment with an annual income of at least 250 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines for the household size; and private health insurance other than subsidized insurance under the Affordable Care Act. Id. To put this in perspective, recall that the Federal Poverty Guideline in 2020 for a family of four is $26,200 in annual income. Poverty Guidelines, www.aspe.hhs.gov. An annual income 250 percent of that number is $65,500, which is very close to the median U.S. income of $63,179 (the 2018 number reported by the U.S. Census on Sept. 10, 2019, see Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2018, www.census.gov).
Other factors include whether an immigrant is younger than 18 or older than 61 (bad); household size (smaller is better); whether an immigrant's household annual gross income is at least 125 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines; past receipt of any amount of public benefits (bad); level of education (good); English language proficiency; and credit history and credit score. Id. at 41502–04.
The Rule represents a striking departure from the previous administrative guidance—one with a potentially devastating impact on those to whom it applies.1 That guidance, issued in 1999 by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (the predecessor of today's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services), defines as a public charge a noncitizen who is "primarily dependent on the government for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New York v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., Docket Nos. 19-3591
...addressed this argument to date. See City and Cty. of San Francisco v. USCIS , 944 F.3d 773, 798 (9th Cir. 2019) ; Cook Cty. v. Wolf , 962 F.3d 208, 226 (7th Cir. 2020). In the context of granting DHS's motion to stay the injunctions against the enforcement of the Rule entered by district c......
-
Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.
...3d 579, 620 (E.D. Pa. 2017) (collecting cases), its new position is "radically different" from its prior position, Cook Cnty. v. Wolf , 962 F.3d 208, 230 (7th Cir. 2020) (quotations and citation omitted), or its positions are "internally inconsistent." General Chem. Corp. v. United States ,......
-
New York v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.
...Circuit's recent decision to affirm the preliminary injunction issued in the Northern District of Illinois.7 See Cook Cty., Illinois v. Wolf , 962 F.3d 208 (7th Cir. 2020). Here, Defendants’ appeal of this Court's prior order issuing the October 2019 Injunction is currently pending before t......
-
Casa De Md., Inc. v. Trump
...Circuit's recent holding that the Rule is likely contrary to law. See, e.g. , Dissenting Op., post at 267 & n.4 (citing Cook Cty. v. Wolf , 962 F.3d 208 (7th Cir. 2020) ). At the outset, both our sister circuit and our dissenting colleague make a critical concession that the term "public ch......
-
THE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECTS OF THE SUPREME COURT'S EMERGENCY STAYS.
...by increasing the information available to the parties."). (275.) GARNER ET AL., supra note 13, at 301, 303. (276.) Cook Cty. v. Wolf, 962 F.3d 208, 234 (7th Cir. (277.) See Edward Foley, The Particular Perils of Emergency Election Cases, SCOTUSBLOG (Oct. 23, 2020 5:28 PM), https://www.scot......
-
EXCLUDING 'UNDESIRABLE' IMMIGRANTS: PUBLIC CHARGE AS DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION.
...140 S. Ct. 681, 681 (2020). The Seventh Circuit later held that the preliminary injunction was properly granted. Cook Cnty. v. Wolf, 962 F.3d 208, 215 (2020). In a thorough dissent, then Judge Amy Barrett recognized that many noncitizens are forgoing public benefits because of the Final Rul......