A federal judge has vacated a group of federal agency policies that expanded how immigration restrictions under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act apply to federally funded health, education, housing and social service programs.
The ruling
In State of New York, et al. v. U.S. Department of Justice, et al., the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted summary judgment to twenty states and the District of Columbia on September 21.
Background of the dispute
The dispute centered on a series of 2025 notices issued by the Departments of Justice, Health and Human Services, Education, Labor, and Housing and Urban Development. Those notices changed how the agencies interpreted the term “federal public benefit” under PRWORA and expanded the range of programs potentially subject to immigration-related eligibility restrictions.
Why the court struck down the notices
The court concluded that the notices issued by HHS, Education, Labor and HUD were legislative rules that should have gone through notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act. Because the agencies did not use that process, the court found those notices procedurally invalid.
The court separately concluded that the Justice Department’s notice was contrary to law because it treated the Attorney General as having authority to categorically decline to recognize any qualifying programs under PRWORA’s life-and-safety exemption.
The court declared the challenged notices unlawful, set them aside and vacated them. It also permanently enjoined the federal defendants from implementing or enforcing the notices or the interpretations contained in them against the plaintiff states and the District of Columbia.
What the ruling does not do
The ruling does not prevent the agencies from pursuing new policies in the future. The court expressly stated that HHS, Education, Labor and HUD may promulgate new PRWORA-related rules after completing notice-and-comment rulemaking required by the APA.
The practical effect is to undo the challenged 2025 expansion for the plaintiff jurisdictions while leaving open the possibility of future rulemaking. The decision addresses the legality of the agency notices themselves and does not eliminate all federal immigration-based eligibility restrictions that exist under PRWORA.