New York State Attorney General Letitia James addressing media outside the U.S. Supreme Court after arguments in the census case United States Department of Commerce v. New York, No. 18-966, on April 23, 2019.

The U.S. Supreme Court has denied a request from a New York State-led coalition to block the Trump administration's "public charge" rule, turning away arguments that said the rule has been deterring immigrants from using publicly funded health care during the COVID-19 crisis and thus increasing their chances of suffering "serious illness … and spread[ing] the [corona]virus inadvertently to others."

But the high court's order, in which it did not publish an opinion or a vote tally, also made clear that the coalition may refile its emergency petition in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and seek relief there.

The coalition, which includes New York State, Connecticut, Vermont and New York City,  says it will do so quickly.

"We will soon file an emergency motion in the Southern District of New York because our country cannot afford to wait," said state Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the coalition in a multipronged legal fight against the rule, in a release late Friday.

"Every person who doesn't get the health coverage they need today risks infecting another person with the coronavirus tomorrow," James added.

The New York attorney general and her coalition, as well as other states in separate lawsuits, have argued that the new rule, which was made final last summer, dissuades legal immigrants who are trying to obtain permanent legal status or citizenship from using public assistance, including vital government programs such as the Medicaid health program for the poor, housing assistance and food stamps.

Some public critics have labeled the public charge rule a "wealth test" for immigrants. Using a rule change in the definition of "public charge," they say, the Trump administration has made it easier for officials to determine that a person may become a "public charge," meaning a person "primarily dependent" on public assistance, and then use that finding to deny the person, under the Immigration and Nationality Act, permanent lawful status in the United States.

Specifically, the new rule says that immigrants are deemed public charges if they're likely to receive government benefits for more than 12 months during a three-year period.

In August, James, joined by the attorney generals of Connecticut and Vermont and by New York City's corporation counsel, launched a lawsuit against the new public charge rule in the Southern District of New York. At the time, James said publicly that it was both a "clear violation" of the nation's laws and a "thinly veiled effort" by the Trump administration "to only allow those who meet their narrow ethnic, racial and economic criteria to gain a path to citizenship."

Then last October, U.S. District Judge George Daniels of the Southern District became the first judge in the country to halt the rule's implementation when he ruled in the coalition's favor on an injunction motion.

His decision was later upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

In January, though, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Daniels and allowed enforcement of the rule to proceed by Feb. 24. And in the opinion, two justices from the high court's conservative arm laid out, more broadly, their strong objections to the use of district court-level nationwide injunctions, which have become more prevalent during the Trump administration.

Last week, James and her coalition brought a new emergency petition to the Supreme Court, asking the court to reconsider whether it should temporarily block implementation of the new public charge rule, now that New York and the nation were in the middle of a public health crisis fueled by the novel coronavirus.

In the coalition's brief, the states and New York City argued to the high court "that narrow and temporary relief … is warranted because the Rule is now causing additional irreparable harms to the public—citizens and noncitizens alike—that were not present when the Court initially considered defendants' motion for a stay [of allowing of the rule's implantation]."

The brief continued, "By deterring immigrants from accessing publicly funded healthcare, including programs that would enable immigrants to obtain testing and treatment for COVID-19, the Rule makes it more likely that immigrants will suffer serious illness if infected and spread the virus inadvertently to others—risks that are heightened because immigrants make up a large proportion of the essential workers who continue to interact with the public."

But the U.S. Department of Justice contended in its Supreme Court brief that any new stop-measure was not called for because the Trump administration was not considering immigrants' use of benefits linked to COVID-19 when deciding who should be deemed a public charge.

The executive branch has "opted to take more targeted steps to ensure that the Rule is being administered in an appropriate way in light of current conditions," the DOJ wrote.

The DOJ on Monday did not immediately respond to a request for comment.