This post is part of Challenging Precedent, a blog of the Stanford Center for Racial Justice examining race, law, and regulation in the Trump era.

On September 21, 2026, a federal judge struck down a Trump administration rule that would have barred some immigrants from accessing certain federal programs, including Head Start preschools, community health clinics, and adult education programs.

The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) has long governed immigrants’ access to various social programs. The statute makes “federal public benefits” accessible only to a limited group of “qualified immigrants.” “Nonqualified” immigrants who are prohibited from using “federal public benefits” include not just undocumented immigrants, but also those who have applied for asylum, have certain work visas, or are recipients of Temporary Protected Status or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

Under PRWORA, not all federal programs fall under the definition of “federal public benefits.” Moreover, the law declared some public benefits are available to all people, regardless of immigration status. These benefits include: treatment of an emergency medical condition, short-term non-cash disaster relief, public assistance for immunization, testing, and treatment of communicable diseases, and other programs necessary to protect life or safety on a community level. These limited benefits—in addition to those falling outside the statutory definition of “federal public benefits”—were not restricted by immigrant eligibility or verification.

In February 2025 President Trump signed Executive Order “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders” to “defend against the waste of hard-earned taxpayer resources.” The order required federal agencies to identify programs that allow undocumented immigrants to obtain cash or non-cash public benefits and to “align such programs with the purposes of [the] order.”

Soon after in July 2025, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a directive rescinding a 1998 policy that for decades determined “some benefits or services . . . do not constitute ‘Federal public benefits.’” Under this classification, “non-qualified” immigrants could access certain programs related to community health and safety, such as Head Start, Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics, and Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Treatment, Prevention, and Recovery Support Services Programs. The recent HHS directive reclassified these programs and several other federally funded social services as “federal public benefits,” restricting access to millions of both lawful and unlawful immigrants.

Over 20 state attorneys general promptly sued, delaying the directive from going into effect. “For the first time, millions of people are facing a new demand before they can access the Nation’s most essential programs: ‘show me your papers,'” the complaint read. The states emphasized the administrative burden of the directive, arguing it would have caused many under-resourced Head Start programs to close for all families. In a separate statement, New York Attorney General Letitia James explained the far-reaching impact of the new rule: “These programs work because they are open, accessible, and grounded in compassion. [The rule] jeopardiz[es] cancer screenings, early childhood education, primary care, and so much more. This is a baseless attack on some of our country’s most effective and inclusive public programs.”

In her September 2026 ruling, Trump-appointed Judge Mary McElroy struck down the directive on procedural grounds. Because the government did not give the required notice and opportunity for public comment, the rule was “procedurally invalid.” However, the ruling does not preclude the government from trying to implement the policy again—assuming it follows the proper notice-and-comment rule-making requirements. Indeed, Judge McElroy acknowledged the injunction did “not prohibit Defendants from promulgating new, different rules to cure the many defects of the vacated PRWORA Notices.”

Brionna Bolaños is a student at Stanford Law School.