

Please try another search
By Andrew Chung
(Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a bid by a group of Republican state officials to take over the defense of a hardline immigration rule issued by former President Donald Trump's administration that had barred certain immigrants deemed likely to require government benefits from obtaining legal permanent residency.
The justices took up an appeal by 13 Republican state attorneys general led by Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich of a lower court's ruling that rejected their bid to defend Trump's "public charge" rule. President Joe Biden's administration dropped the government's defense of the policy. A federal judge in Illinois in a separate case vacated the rule nationwide.
The rule was in effect from February 2020 until last March.
Brnovich was joined in his effort by officials from Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and West Virginia.
U.S. guidelines in place for the past two decades had said immigrants likely to become primarily dependent on direct cash assistance or long-term institutionalization, in a nursing home for example, at public expense would be barred from legal permanent residency, known as a "green card."
Trump's policy expanded this to anyone deemed likely to receive a much wider range of benefits for more than an aggregate of 12 months over any 36-month period including the Medicaid healthcare program, housing and food assistance.
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided in 2020 that Trump's policy impermissibly expanded the definition of who counts as a "public charge." Other courts around the country made similar rulings.
Brnovich and the other Republican officials told the justices that they should be able to defend Trump's rule, saying it has been estimated to save all states about $1 billion annually. During the time the policy was enforced, the government issued only three denials of admission under it, according to court filings, all of which have since been reversed.
The Supreme Court in March dismissed another case https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-immigration/u-s-supreme-court-dismisses-trump-immigration-rule-dispute-idUSKBN2B123S from New York involving the legality of the rule at the urging of Biden's administration.
By Jarrett Renshaw KIAWAH ISLAND, S.C. (Reuters) -President Joe Biden plans to travel across the United States in the coming weeks to tout a series of legislative wins on climate...
By Karen Freifeld NEW YORK (Reuters) -Former U.S. President Donald Trump said on Wednesday he declined to answer questions during an appearance before New York state's attorney...
By Luc Cohen NEW YORK (Reuters) - Here is an outline of the legal problems Donald Trump might face over his removal from the White House of official presidential records that his...
Are you sure you want to block %USER_NAME%?
By doing so, you and %USER_NAME% will not be able to see any of each other's Investing.com's posts.
%USER_NAME% was successfully added to your Block List
Since you’ve just unblocked this person, you must wait 48 hours before renewing the block.
I feel that this comment is:
Thank You!
Your report has been sent to our moderators for review
Add a Comment
We encourage you to use comments to engage with other users, share your perspective and ask questions of authors and each other. However, in order to maintain the high level of discourse we’ve all come to value and expect, please keep the following criteria in mind:
Enrich the conversation, don’t trash it.
Stay focused and on track. Only post material that’s relevant to the topic being discussed.
Be respectful. Even negative opinions can be framed positively and diplomatically. Avoid profanity, slander or personal attacks directed at an author or another user. Racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination will not be tolerated.
Perpetrators of spam or abuse will be deleted from the site and prohibited from future registration at Investing.com’s discretion.