Nevada has joined 21 other states and Washington, D.C., in challenging a new federal immigration policy that could make it harder for some people to receive a green card or enter the United States.
Under the policy, immigration officers may consider whether an applicant has used certain public benefits—including Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), food assistance, or housing assistance—when making some immigration decisions.
The federal government says the change promotes self-sufficiency. Nevada and the other states argue that it is vague, unlawful, and likely to cause harm.
Why does this matter?
Families may avoid health care, food assistance, school meals, or housing support because they fear it could affect an immigration case—even when a child or other family member is legally eligible for that help.
This can affect entire households, including U.S.-citizen children. When families skip preventive care or go without enough food, the consequences can include greater illness, hunger, housing instability, and increased costs for communities and public systems.
The lawsuit argues that widespread disenrollment could also reduce federal support for Medicaid, CHIP, and SNAP, leaving states to address the resulting gaps.
For LEAN, this is about human dignity and community well-being.
Immigration policy is also health policy, hunger policy, housing policy, and children’s policy. Every family should be able to seek the care and support for which they are eligible without fear.
Families with questions about their individual circumstances should seek advice from a qualified immigration attorney or trusted nonprofit legal-services provider. Do not rely on social media or general information alone for legal advice.
