U.S. SUPREME COURT RECONSIDERS TRUMP'S TOUGH IMMIGRATION RULING

 U.S. SUPREME COURT RECONSIDERS TRUMP'S TOUGH IMMIGRATION RULING

U.S. SUPREME COURT RECONSIDERS TRUMP'S TOUGH IMMIGRATION RULING
 U.S. SUPREME COURT RECONSIDERS TRUMP'S TOUGH IMMIGRATION RULING


(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday approved a legalization study of a tough immigration rule of former President Donald Trump that prevents immigrants who are believed to be likely to require government benefits from permanent legal residency.


President Joe Biden, who has criticized Trump's immigration approach, is widely expected to abandon the "general charge" rule.


The justices agreed to file an appeal that the Trump administration had filed against a lower court ruling that found the rule likely to violate federal immigration and administrative law by unauthorized expansion of the definition of a "public charge" and an increase in the number of people whose residency would be denied.


Trump's hardline stance on legal and illegal immigration has been a hallmark of his presidency. The most highly contentious issue in the lawsuit filed in federal courts in New York and Illinois is whether immigrants are eligible for legal permanent residence, known as a "green card. U.S. immigration law has long required officials to exclude people likely to become a public fee from permanent residence


U.S. guidelines in place over the past two decades have stated that immigrants are likely to become primarily dependent on direct or long-term institutional assistance, in an nursing home, for example, at the expense of public maintenance.


Trump's policy has expanded public liability to anyone who believes he is likely to receive a much wider range of public goods for more than 12 months over any 36-month period, including Medicaid, housing and food assistance.


The new York case was united by three states -- New York, Connecticut and Vermont -- and a coalition of immigrant advocacy groups. A federal judge suspended the rule in 2019 for possible violations of federal law, and last August the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals based in New York upheld the decision.


The justices did not act in a separate dispute over the rule under which Cook County, Illinois, and the defense group filed a lawsuit in a federal court in that state, and the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Court of Appeals upheld an injunction last June. Judge Amy Connie Barrett, now a Trump-appointed Supreme Court justice, disputed the decision and found that the government's ruling was a reasonable interpretation of the Public Shipping Act.