California and a coalition of other liberal-led states sued the Trump administration Monday over new rules barring undocumented immigrants from accessing more than a dozen federally funded “public benefit” programs, arguing the restrictions target working mothers and their children in violation of federal law.
President Trump and others in his administration have defended the restrictions as necessary to protect services for American citizens — including veterans — and reduce incentives for illegal immigration into the country.
One of the programs facing new restrictions is Head Start, which provided nearly 700,000 low-income infants, toddlers and preschoolers with child care, nutrition and health assistance.
Others include short-term shelters for homeless people, survivors of domestic violence and at-risk youth; emergency shelters for people during extreme weather; soup kitchens, community food banks and food support services for the elderly, such as Meals on Wheels; healthcare services for those with mental illness and substance abuse issues; and other adult education programs.
California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office said states have been allowed to extend such programs to undocumented immigrant families at least since 1997, and the Trump administration’s “abrupt reversal of nearly three decades of precedent” amounted to a “cruel” and costly attack on some of the nation’s most vulnerable residents.
“This latest salvo in the President’s inhumane anti-immigration campaign primarily goes after working moms and their young children,” Bonta said. “We’re not talking about waste, fraud, and abuse, we’re talking about programs that deliver essential childcare, healthcare, nutrition, and education assistance, programs that have for decades been open to all.”
The lawsuit — which California filed along with 19 other states and the District of Columbia — contends the new restrictions were not only initiated in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner and without proper notice to the states, but will end up costing the states hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
Bonta’s office said “requiring programs to expend resources to implement systems and train staff to verify citizenship or immigration status will impose a time and resource burden on programs already struggling to operate on narrow financial margins.”
It also said that the impact of the changes in California, which has a huge immigrant population compared to other states, would be “devastating — and immediate.”
Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, said in a statement Monday that Trump “was elected based on his promise to put Americans first and that’s exactly what this administration is committed to doing.”
“Many of our fellow Americans rely on assistance from the government and federally funded resources to get back on their feet,” Jackson said. “When illegal aliens exploit these resources it is at the expense of Americans in desperate need of them.”
The states’ claims run counter to arguments from Trump, his administration and other anti-immigration advocates that extending benefits to undocumented immigrants encourages illegal immigration into the country, costs American taxpayers money and makes it harder for U.S. citizens to receive services.
About a month after taking office, Trump issued an executive order titled “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders,” in which he said his administration would “uphold the rule of law, defend against the waste of hard-earned taxpayer resources, and protect benefits for American citizens in need, including individuals with disabilities and veterans.”
The order required the heads of federal agencies to conduct sweeping reviews of their benefits programs and move to restrict access for undocumented immigrants, in part to “prevent taxpayer resources from acting as a magnet and fueling illegal immigration to the United States.”
Trump cited the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 as providing clear restrictions against noncitizens participating in federally funded benefits programs, and accused past administrations of undermining “the principles and limitations” of that law.
Past administrations have provided exemptions to the law, namely by allowing immigrants to access certain “life or safety” programs — including those now being targeted for new restrictions.
In response to Trump’s order, various federal agencies — including Health and Human Services, Labor, Education and Agriculture — issued notices earlier this month announcing their reinterpretation of the 1996 law as excluding “noncitizens” from more programs, including previously exempted ones.
“For too long, the government has diverted hardworking Americans’ tax dollars to incentivize illegal immigration,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “Today’s action changes that — it restores integrity to federal social programs, enforces the rule of law, and protects vital resources for the American people.”
“Under President Trump’s leadership, hardworking American taxpayers will no longer foot the bill for illegal aliens to participate in our career, technical, or adult education programs or activities,” said Education Secretary Linda McMahon.
“By ensuring these programs serve their intended purpose, we’re protecting good-paying jobs for American workers and reaffirming this Administration’s commitment to securing our borders and ending illegal immigration,” said Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer.
The Department of Agriculture also said it would apply new restrictions on benefits for undocumented immigrants, including under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. However, the states’ lawsuit does not challenge the Department of Agriculture, noting that “many USDA programs are subject to an independent statutory requirement to provide certain benefits programs to everyone regardless of citizenship,” which the department’s notice said would continue to apply.
Joining Bonta in filing the lawsuit were the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin, as well as the District of Columbia.
Yasmina Vinci, executive director for the National Head Start Assn., said her organization was not involved in the litigation, but would “follow it with interest.”
“Head Start has a more than 60-year track record of bipartisan support and success in producing healthier children, safer neighborhoods, more parents working and contributing, and fewer families needing public assistance,” Vinci said. “Given all that Head Start does for the country’s youngest learners and their futures, there is no good reason to make it harder for children to access this life-changing opportunity.”
Times staff writer Jenny Gold contributed to this report.
