Wisconsin has joined a lawsuit challenging a Trump administration rule that would expand the federal government’s ability to consider public benefits when deciding whether some immigrants may receive green cards, visas or entry into the United States. The lawsuit, filed Monday in the Southern District of New York, includes 22 states and the District of Columbia. The rule is scheduled to take effect Friday and would rescind a Biden-era policy that generally excluded noncash benefits from “public charge” reviews. Under the new approach, immigration officials could consider an applicant’s use of any means-tested public benefit. That could include Medicaid, food assistance, housing support and school meal programs. Officials could also consider benefits received by family members, including U.S.-citizen children, according to immigration policy advocates. The states argue that the Department of Homeland Security exceeded its authority and failed to account for the consequences of the change. They estimate the states involved could lose about $2.2 billion in federal Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program payments if eligible families stop enrolling in benefits because of immigration fears. Nationwide losses could reach $4.05 billion annually, the lawsuit says. New York Attorney General Letitia James, who announced the case alongside New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, said the rule could force immigrants to choose between basic necessities and their chances of securing permanent legal status. “Will getting health insurance hurt my chances of getting a green card?” James said, describing a question immigrant New Yorkers may now face. “Will accepting food assistance when I fall on hard times be held against me?” A separate lawsuit filed Monday by New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, Santa Clara County in California and King County in Washington also seeks to stop the rule. The local governments say immigrant-heavy communities could face higher costs and reduced federal support if families withdraw from programs they are legally allowed to use. Immigrant-rights groups say confusion is already affecting mixed-status families. Arline Cruz, health programs director at Make the Road New York, said families are asking whether they should remove U.S.-citizen children from programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as SNAP. The public-charge provision dates to the Immigration Act of 1882. For decades, officials generally considered only cash assistance such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Supplemental Security Income. The first Trump administration expanded the categories in 2020 to include programs such as Medicaid, food stamps and housing vouchers. The Biden administration reversed that expansion in 2022. The new rule is broader than the 2020 version because it does not identify specific programs that may be considered, instead allowing officials to examine any means-tested public benefit. About 588,000 applicants undergo public-charge reviews each year, according to the Department of Homeland Security. DHS defended the change, saying it would restore the principle that immigrants should be able to support themselves and protect public resources. The states contend the policy could undermine health care access, food security, school participation and local economies by discouraging families from seeking assistance. The case had not been assigned a judge or hearing as of Monday afternoon. The states are asking the court to declare the rule unlawful and prevent DHS from enforcing it.