Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco
Wikipedia · Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org
Argued on Feb 23, 2022.Decided on Jun 15, 2022.
Petitioner: Arizona, et al..Respondent: City and County of San Francisco, California, et al..
Advocates: Mark Brnovich (for the Petitioners)
Brian H. Fletcher (for the federal Respondents)
Helen H. Hong (for the state Respondents)
Facts of the case (from oyez.org)
Although federal immigration law uses the term “public charge,” referring generally to recipients of federal benefits, it lacks a precise and clear definition. Under the Clinton administration, it referred only to a noncitizen who received cash benefits (as opposed to other types of benefits). In 2019, the Trump administration issued a final rule defining “public charge” as a noncitizen who would likely need cash benefits and/or government-provided housing, food assistance, or medical insurance for more than twelve months.
The rule was subject to legal challenges, and the Biden administration stopped defending the rule and dismissed all the cases challenging the rule. The federal government also took additional steps to revert the definition to that of the Clinton administration. Several states sought to intervene in the litigation and take up the defense of the rule where the federal government left off. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the states’ motion to intervene.

Question
Can states with interests intervene to defend a rule when the United States ceases to defend it?

Conclusion
Dismissed as improvidently granted.