In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 19-3169 COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CHAD F. WOLF, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, et al., Defendants-Appellants. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 19 C 6334 — Gary Feinerman, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED FEBRUARY 26, 2020 — DECIDED JUNE 10, 2020 ____________________ Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and ROVNER and BARRETT, Cir- cuit Judges. WOOD, Chief Judge. 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. Recog- nizing this, Congress has chosen to make immigrants eligible for various public benefits; state and local governments have 2 No. 19-3169 done the same. Those benefits include subsidized health in- surance, supplemental nutrition benefits, and housing assis- tance. Historically, with limited exceptions, temporary receipt of these supplemental benefits did not jeopardize an immi- grant’s chances of one day adjusting his status to that of a le- gal 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 as- sistance in any amount, at any point in the future, from enter- ing 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 Immi- grant 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 estab- lished its right to bring its claim and that the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting preliminary injunctive re- lief. We therefore affirm. I. The Setting A. The Public-Charge Rule The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA, or “the Act”) provides that a noncitizen may be denied admission or ad- No. 19-3169 3 justment of status if she “is likely at any time to become a pub- lic charge.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(4)(A). The statute does not de- fine 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 sup- port 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 pe- riod, DHS ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals