On Friday, October 11, three separate federal district courts issued injunctions blocking the Trump Administration from implementing its “public charge” rule, which threatened access to health care and public benefits for disabled citizens and non-citizens alike. DREDF, along with seventeen other disability rights organizations, filed amicus briefs (PDF) in each of these cases, denouncing the Administration’s rule as a discriminatory move that would create confusion and fear among disability and immigrant communities.
Today’s decisions confirm that the judiciary has listened to the concerns of disability advocates and, after decades of systemic barriers, affirmed the rights of immigrants with disabilities who can and want to fully participate in life and work in the United States.
In New York v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Judge Daniels wrote: “[The Trump Administration did] not explain how disability alone is itself a negative factor indicative of being more likely to become a public charge. In fact, it is inconsistent with the reality that many individuals with disabilities live independent and productive lives.” DREDF’s amicus efforts were also cited in Washington v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, with Judge Peterson writing: “Amici provide a compelling analysis of how the factors introduced by the Public Charge Rule disproportionately penalize disabled applicants by “triple-counting” the effects of being disabled.”
While DREDF is encouraged by these resounding rulings, and we are heartened that concerns specific to disabled immigrants were among the factors that informed the courts’ decisions, we will remain vigilant at holding the Trump Administration accountable. Ultimately, these decisions could still be appealed. We thank advocates, citizens, and non-citizens across the nation for their tireless efforts to ensure fairness, equality, and opportunity in the U.S. immigration system.