This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Gen. Mark Brnovich, arizona says the rule saves the states collectively more than a billion dollars per year.
Background and question before the Court
Several parties argue the public charge rule is unlawful because it defines “public charge” too broadly.
According to Gen. Mark Brnovich, the Ninth Circuit refused to let Arizona and other states intervene to defend the public charge rule.
Justice Thomas asked whether the petitioners have standing to challenge the Ninth Circuit’s preliminary injunction.
What each side argues
State of Arizona
According to State of Arizona, mark Brnovich, Attorney General of Arizona, argued the cause for petitioners.
According to Gen. Mark Brnovich, arizona claims the Ninth Circuit’s refusal to let the state intervene was an unprecedented effort to unlawfully disregard a prior administration’s rule.
According to Gen. Mark Brnovich, arizona says the rule saves the states collectively more than a billion dollars per year.
State of Ohio
According to State of Ohio, briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the State of Ohio by Attorney General Dave Yost, Solicitor General Benjamin M. Flowers, and Deputy Solicitor General John L. Rockenbach.
Other Parties
According to Several parties, several parties filed lawsuits arguing that the public charge rule is unlawful because it defines “public charge” too broadly.
Fletcher
Fletcher argued that the situation is not a circumvention of notice‑and‑comment regulation.
According to Fletcher, fletcher said the solution is not changing the rules of intervention or letting states block adverse decisions.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Thomas asked whether the petitioners have standing to challenge the Ninth Circuit’s preliminary injunction.
Justice Barrett asked how important the Administrative Procedure Act is to the argument and whether the issue is a statute.
Justice Barrett asked whether the fact that cert had already been granted on this issue matters.
Justice Alito asked why the issue is so.
According to Justice Kavanaugh, justice Kavanaugh noted it is odd to think about notice‑and‑comment for repeal after an acquiescence.
Justice Kavanaugh asked why it is wrong for the states to intervene to try to Munsingwear the adverse decisions.
Justice Sotomayor asked about the Munsingwear doctrine in this context.
- [1] 7fed7b524c206a2570cb-r1-a7f771ea39dcae17.pdf, p. 6
- [2] 7fed7b524c206a2570cb-r1-a7f771ea39dcae17.pdf, p. 33
- [3] 7fed7b524c206a2570cb-r1-a7f771ea39dcae17.pdf, p. 34
- [4] 7fed7b524c206a2570cb-r1-a7f771ea39dcae17.pdf, p. 40
- [5] 7fed7b524c206a2570cb-r1-a7f771ea39dcae17.pdf, p. 46
- [6] 7fed7b524c206a2570cb-r1-a7f771ea39dcae17.pdf, p. 62
- [7] 7fed7b524c206a2570cb-r1-a7f771ea39dcae17.pdf, p. 63
- [8] 7fed7b524c206a2570cb-r1-a7f771ea39dcae17.pdf, p. 65
- [9] 7fed7b524c206a2570cb-r1-a7f771ea39dcae17.pdf, p. 66
What the Court decided
Why it matters
According to Gen. Mark Brnovich, the public charge rule could affect state budgets, as Arizona claims it saves the states more than a billion dollars per year.
According to Several parties, if the rule’s definition of “public charge” is too broad, it could limit access to benefits for many individuals.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 6f297bb1aaabe0c0e33b-r1-4e7803b8ffead847.pdfopinion
- 7fed7b524c206a2570cb-r1-a7f771ea39dcae17.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 28, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.