U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in Washington, D.C. Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM

A Manhattan federal judge repeatedly pressed a Justice Department lawyer on the rationale behind the Trump administration's proposed "public charge" rule, which is aimed at making it easier for the federal government to deny green cards to immigrants who may rely on public assistance based on their income.

In an aggressive line of questioning, U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels of the Southern District of New York said the proposed rule, set to take effect Oct. 15, sought to impose a new definition that would include noncitizens who are likely to receive some form of public benefits for more than 12 months in a 36-month period.

The district judge said the new definition aimed to drastically narrow, without congressional approval, who is currently considered a public charge and asked why the administration chose to promulgate the rule.

"You gotta give me some rational basis," Daniels said. "The mere receipt of public benefits is not enough on its own to deem somebody a public charge."

Opponents are requesting a preliminary injunction that would bar the rule from going into effect while litigation is ongoing. On Monday, plaintiff attorneys argued that the measure was tinged with "racial animus" and should be reviewed under the daunting strict scrutiny standard because it would disadvantage nonwhite immigrants, while favoring those coming from Europe.

"The outcome is that people who are black, Latino or Asian are more likely to be disproportionately impacted," said Ghita Schwarz, senior staff attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Attorneys said that the designation of public charge historically has been reserved for individuals who are "predominantly reliant on government aid" for an extended period of time. But under the new rule, immigrants who receive one or more specified public benefits for an aggregate of 12 months during a three-year window would be more likely to be deemed a public charge.

Challengers to the rule argued that immigrants who are deemed a public charge are less likely to be granted legal status to remain in the country under the Immigration and Nationality Act, which was enacted by Congress more than six decades ago.

As a result, the attorneys claimed, immigrants would likely forgo applying for Medicaid, food stamps and housing subsidies, services, the lawyers said, they are entitled to under federal law.

Ethan Davis, the DOJ attorney, said the rule would establish a "totality-of-the-circumstances" test that would weigh multiple factors do determine if someone is likely to become a public charge. Davis acknowledged that the rule would lead to fewer people obtaining green cards, but said the rule was operating within the parameters of Congress' broad definition of "public charge."

Disproportionate impacts on certain groups, he said, were not enough to hold up the rule from going into effect next week.

"The agency is entitled to adopt a reasonable interpretation of broad language," Davis said.

Daniels did not issue a ruling at the end of Monday's hearing, but his chambers said he intended to rule by the end of the week.

Read More:

New Challenge to Trump's 'Public Charge' Immigration Rule Says It 'Weaponizes' Social Safety Net

New York State Leads New Challenge to 'Public Charge' Rule From Trump Administration

US Judge Dismisses Trump Challenge to Subpoena of Tax Returns; 2nd Circuit Gets Immediate Appeal