## Facts

- DHS issued a 2019 final rule redefining “public charge” for inadmissibility purposes to include receipt of specified public benefits for more than 12 months in the aggregate within any 36-month period, counting two benefits in one month as two months.
- The rule expanded covered benefits beyond cash assistance to include certain non-cash programs, including SNAP, most Medicaid, and certain housing assistance.
- California local governments, multiple states, and the District of Columbia sued under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), alleging the rule conflicted with the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and was arbitrary and capricious.
- District courts in the Northern District of California and Eastern District of Washington entered preliminary injunctions blocking implementation of the rule; one injunction had nationwide scope.
- DHS appealed; the Ninth Circuit considered the appeals on the merits of the preliminary injunctions and addressed standing, likelihood of success, irreparable harm, and the appropriate scope of injunctive relief.

## Issues

1. Whether the state and local plaintiffs had Article III standing and were within the zone of interests of the INA public-charge provision.
2. Whether plaintiffs were likely to succeed in showing the 2019 rule was contrary to law under the APA because it was inconsistent with a reasonable interpretation of the INA’s public-charge bar.
3. Whether plaintiffs were likely to succeed in showing the rule was arbitrary and capricious under the APA, including for failure to address reliance interests and significant fiscal and public-health effects.
4. Whether plaintiffs showed irreparable harm and whether the balance of equities and the public interest favored preliminary injunctive relief.
5. Whether a nationwide injunction was permissible or whether relief should be limited to plaintiff jurisdictions.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit held plaintiffs had standing based on likely financial injuries to state and local governments from benefit disenrollment and cost shifting.
- The court held plaintiffs’ asserted interests were within the zone of interests of the INA public-charge provision.
- The court concluded plaintiffs showed a high likelihood of success that the rule was contrary to law because it departed from the historically narrow understanding of “public charge” and conflicted with statutory structure and history.
- The court also concluded plaintiffs showed a high likelihood of success that the rule was arbitrary and capricious because DHS inadequately considered important consequences, including costs to the public fisc and harms to public health, and did not sufficiently justify a reversal of longstanding policy.
- The court upheld preliminary injunctive relief but rejected nationwide scope: it affirmed the Northern District of California injunction as limited to plaintiff jurisdictions and vacated the nationwide portion of the Eastern District of Washington injunction.

## Legal Principles

- States and local governments may establish Article III standing by showing likely fiscal injury from federal policy that predictably shifts costs to state or local programs.
- Under the APA, agency action is “contrary to law” if it reflects an interpretation inconsistent with any reasonable reading of the governing statute.
- An agency rule is arbitrary and capricious when the agency fails to consider important aspects of the problem or fails to supply a reasoned explanation for changing course, especially where prior factual premises and reliance interests are implicated.
- In evaluating preliminary injunctions, courts consider likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, and whether the balance of equities and public interest favor relief; there is no public interest in maintaining likely unlawful agency action.
- Injunctive relief should be no broader than necessary to remedy the plaintiffs’ injuries; nationwide injunctions are disfavored when narrower relief can address the harm and similar issues are concurrently litigated elsewhere.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiff states and local governments were likely to succeed on their APA challenges to DHS’s 2019 public-charge rule because it conflicted with the INA and was inadequately reasoned, and it upheld preliminary injunctions against enforcement only within the plaintiff jurisdictions rather than nationwide.


City & County of San Francisco v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 981 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 2020)