immigration and customs enforcement ICE-Article-201903292133The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Wednesday upheld a nationwide injunction blocking implementation of the Trump administration's "public charge" rule, which would make it easier for the federal government to deny legal status to immigrants who apply for public benefits based on their income.

The panel's ruling was the first appellate court decision to prevent the Trump administration from enforcing the new rule nationwide, after the U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Fourth and Ninth circuits both lifted similar lower court orders late last year.

The decision is a win for state attorneys general led by New York Attorney General Letitia James and immigrants' rights groups represented in the case by attorneys from Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.

In a terse one-page order, a three-judge panel cited the standard for granting a stay pending appeal, and said expedited briefing before the Second Circuit was set to wrap Feb. 14. Oral argument, the order said, "will be scheduled promptly thereafter."

"As always, the merits panel as soon as constituted has full authority to consider the scope of the existing injunction," it said.

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who led a coalition of states attorneys general and immigrant rights groups in challenging the rule, praised the ruling on Wednesday for protecting the "millions of immigrants in our state and in this country that have been sidelined, disrespected and demeaned by the Trump Administration."

"The court's decision to enforce the preliminary injunction and block the president from expediting his plan to discriminate against communities of color is welcome news to millions across New York and this country," James said in a statement. "We remain committed to fighting against this misguided rule and will continue to pursue every legal tool available to permanently stop it."

Wednesday's ruling came just one day after the panel heard oral arguments on the Trump administration's request to lift the injunction while the case was litigated. Second Circuit Judges Guido Calabresi and Susan L. Carney, however, seemed skeptical of the government's claims that it would suffer irreparable harm unless the order was lifted.

Under the new rule, immigrants who receive one or more designated public benefits, such as Medicaid, food stamps and housing subsidies, for an aggregate of 12 months during a three-year period would be more likely to be deemed a public charge.

James and a contingent of immigrants rights groups filed separate lawsuits last year over the proposed rule change, which would alter the definition of public charge, a designation they said has historically referred to individuals who are "predominantly reliant on government aid" for an extended period of time.

According to the plaintiffs, the change was targeted at racial minorities and prevent them from applying for benefits they would otherwise be entitled to.

In October, U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels of the Southern District of New York expressed skepticism about the motive behind the rule and blocked its implementation.

"Defendants do not articulate why they are changing the public charge definition, why this new definition is needed now, or why the definition set forth in the rule—which has absolutely no support in the history of U.S. immigration law—is reasonable," Daniels wrote in an Oct. 11 ruling.

Justice Department attorney Daniel Tenny argued Tuesday that as long as the injunction remains in place, the federal government would be forced to grant permanent-resident status to people who were likely to be public charges under the new rule, decisions that could not be revisited or adjusted once they are made.

Carney responded to that argument by asking how the federal government could be irreparably harmed by continuing to follow a procedure that has been in place for decades.

Carney noted that nationwide injunctions were "obviously problematic from a number of perspectives," but suggested it might be more efficient for the appeals court to first take up the merits of the case instead of deciding whether to lift the injunction. The issue of irreparable harm, she said, was "very uncertain."

New York Assistant Solicitor General Judith Vale, arguing for the states, said the purpose of the injunction was to maintain the status quo until a merits panel could weigh in. Daniels ruling, she said, found that the government was unlikely to succeed on the merits, and the government carried the burden of showing that a stay was needed.

Jonathan Hurwitz, a Paul Weiss attorney representing the immigrants' rights groups, meanwhile, said that without the injunction, "hundreds of thousands" of immigrants would forgo benefits, leading to an increase in emergency room visits, communicable diseases and problems with housing. Aid groups, he said, would be forced to dedicate most of their resources to addressing the fallout and would not be able to do the "work they normally do."

"I don't know whether the government would characterize that as harm, but it sounds like harm to me," he said.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit did deny the administration's request for a stay, but that ruling only applied to the state of Illinois.

Read More: