Wisconsin residents can continue using federally funded community health clinics, Head Start and adult education programs without the immigration-status checks sought by the Trump administration, after a federal judge struck down the administration’s rule on procedural grounds. U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy ruled Sept. 21 that federal agencies failed to provide the required notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing the rule in 2025. The decision blocks the federal government from implementing or enforcing it, but leaves open the possibility that agencies could issue a new version after following the required process. The rule would have limited access to many federally funded programs to U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, refugees, people granted asylum and certain other groups. It would have excluded undocumented immigrants as well as some immigrants with legal status, including people with Temporary Protected Status, student or work visas, and U visas for survivors of serious crimes. Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul joined attorneys general from 20 other states in suing to stop the rule. The states argued that requiring programs to verify every participant’s status would impose major administrative costs and deter people from seeking services. The rule had been on hold in those states while the lawsuit proceeded. The administration adopted the policy after President Donald Trump issued an executive order prompting a broader interpretation of a 1996 federal welfare law. For decades, federal officials had treated that law as inapplicable to a range of health, education and community programs open to all residents. The restrictions could have affected community health centers, adult education classes and other services. Wisconsin has 16 federally qualified community health centers operating at 217 locations. Nationwide, more than 17,000 such clinics serve patients, according to the National Association of Community Health Centers. Dr. Ken Loving, chief executive of Access Community Health Centers, which operates five clinics in southwest Wisconsin, said uncertainty over access has already undermined patients’ confidence in care. Patients may not know the details of the case, he said, but hear ongoing questions about whether they will be able to get treatment in the future. “We try to focus on the health care we’re delivering to people, and we wind up having to spend a lot of time and effort just reassuring people that we’re there for them,” Loving said. The rule also would have required adult education programs to verify eligibility for all students, not only immigrants. Jacob Hofstetter, a policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, said providers would have needed to interpret complex immigration categories, adding a significant burden for programs already operating with limited resources. Hofstetter said one adult education program in a state that implemented the restrictions had dismissed a third of its students. Some providers also turned away U.S.-born students who lacked documents to prove citizenship or could not complete the extra verification steps, he said. Wisconsin’s 16 technical colleges could have faced checks for adult education students and some career training participants. Katy Pettersen, a Wisconsin Technical College System spokesperson, said it was too early to speculate on future changes because the legal process may continue and the decision could be appealed. A U.S. Department of Education spokesperson called the ruling “an unfortunate betrayal of hardworking, American taxpayers” and said the lawsuit showed Democrats would defend federal funds supporting undocumented immigrants. The rule, however, would also have excluded some immigrants with lawful status. The department referred questions about an appeal or a replacement rule to the Justice Department, which did not respond to a request for comment. Loving and other health care providers said they will continue to monitor the case and other legal challenges that could affect immigrant patients. Hofstetter said the ruling offers relief but does not necessarily settle the issue, given the administration’s stated priority of restricting immigration.