Federal appeals court judges ask tough questions while mulling Trump’s new rules targeting poor immigrants

New Trump administration rules restricting immigration faced some critical questions from a panel of federal appeals court judges in Chicago.

At issue are “public charge” rules that restrict immigration based on whether someone is deemed likely to seek public benefits in the future.

“Would Stephen Hawking be deemed likely to be a public charge?” Judge Ilana Rovner of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals asked hypothetically of the late British physicist who suffered from Lou Gehrig’s disease and used a wheelchair.

“I believe he would,” said Tacy Flint, an attorney representing the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, which is locked in a battle to knock down the new rules.

The appeals court is tasked with affirming or denying a preliminary injunction granted in October that temporarily halted the new immigration policy in Illinois. However, the United States Supreme Court on Friday stayed that injunction, allowing the policy to take effect as court battles over the policy play out.

The Department of Homeland Security began implementing the policy nationwide on Monday.

Should the 7th Circuit affirm the injunction — a decision is expected within weeks — the Department of Justice is likely to appeal to the Supreme Court.

A similar court battle is playing out in federal court in New York.

The new rules would keep poor immigrants from seeking public benefits — including medical assistance — out of fear of jeopardizing their chances of obtaining a green card, critics argue.

“They should be advised to stay away from a doctor’s office?” Judge Diane Wood asked Justice Department attorney Gerard Sinzdak, who represented the Department of Homeland Security during oral arguments Wednesday.

“No, they should be advised to use private resources,” Sinzdak responded.

The policy will result in more visits to the emergency room for more expensive care that might have been treated earlier by a doctor, said David Morrison, an attorney with the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office, which is part of the coalition seeking to block the new rules.

“It’s financial lunacy to have someone forced over to the emergency room,” Wood said.

Militza Pagan, an attorney with the Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, which is also part of the coalition seeking to block the new immigration rules, was encouraged after oral arguments concluded Wednesday.

“I think we’re hopeful based on the questions the judges asked,” she said.

“This is a really a wealth test: ‘If you don’t have money, we won’t allow you to become a resident and stay here legally,’” she added.

Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx released a statement Wednesday that read, in part: “We will continue to fight for the merits of this injunction and challenge the Trump Administration’s implementation of discriminatory policies, which threaten to harm the public health and economic well-being of Cook County as a whole.”

The new rules aim to determine whether immigrants seeking legal residency may become a burden on the government and are part of the Trump administration’s broader effort to reduce immigration, particularly among poorer people.