Amici curiae brief argues July 2025 HHS notice is unlawful, harmful to public health, and economically damaging nationwide
The American Public Health Association, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the National Center for Medical-Legal Partnership, and the Jacobs Institute of Women’s Health have filed an amici curiae brief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. They are joined by 65 distinguished deans, professors, and scholars in public health, law, and health policy.
The brief urges the court to vacate and enjoin a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) notice that reverses longstanding policy to now prohibit immigrants from accessing critical health programs.
The brief supports the plaintiffs in State of New York et al. v. U.S. Department of Justice et al., which challenges a July 2025 HHS notice reinterpreting a 1996 federal law. The notice reclassifies several community-based health programs as “federal public benefits,” making millions of immigrants, including people with Temporary Protected Status, asylum applicants, DACA recipients, and certain visa holders, ineligible for essential health services.
The amici argue that the policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act because HHS did not properly consider the significant public health, economic, and community harms the change would cause.
“These programs were designed by Congress to serve entire communities, without regard to immigration status,” said Anne Markus, one of the amici and Chair of the Department of Health Policy and Management at the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health. “Excluding immigrants from primary care, behavioral health services, maternal health care, and early childhood programs will not only harm families — it will undermine the health of communities nationwide.”
Threat to Community Health Programs
The HHS notice affects critical programs that have historically operated on a community-wide basis, including:
- The Health Center Program, which provides primary and preventive care to underserved populations
- Head Start, serving approximately 800,000 low-income children annually
- Title X, the nation’s only federal program dedicated solely to family planning and reproductive health services; and
- HHS-funded behavioral health programs, including mobile crisis services and 988 crisis response support.
Amici warn that barring immigrants from these programs will:
- Increase preventable illness and worsen chronic disease
- Reduce access to prenatal and maternal health care, raising risks of low birthweight and preterm birth
- Deny children access to immunizations, developmental screenings, and early intervention services
Economic and Health System Consequences
According to the brief, denying access to preventive and primary care will not eliminate need but will instead shift costs to hospital emergency departments and state-funded systems, increasing uncompensated care and threatening rural and safety-net providers.
The policy could also destabilize the workforce. Immigrants play critical roles in healthcare, long-term care, agriculture, construction, and service industries. Poor health outcomes and untreated conditions may limit their ability to work, reducing productivity and consumer spending.
APHA CEO Georges C. Benjamin adds, “Denying access to essential healthcare is morally unjust, medically inappropriate and puts all communities at risk by shifting and exacerbating existing healthcare problems with cost, quality, and access to the broader population. It forces people to receive care later in the course of their disease and creates barriers to receiving preventive health services when it can do the most good.”
The amici request that the court rule in favor of the plaintiffs and permanently prevent the HHS notice from being implemented.
The brief can be found here.
This filing is part of the Hirsh Health Law and Policy Program Public Health Deans and Scholars Project.
Amici is represented by Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP and the Lawyers’ Committee for Rhode Island.
The views presented in the brief represent those of the amici and do not necessarily reflect the views of their institutions.
