{
  "id": "R43221",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R43221",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 424223,
      "date": "2013-09-09",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-06T20:58:16.169335",
      "title": "Noncitizen Eligibility for Public Benefits: Legal Issues\t",
      "summary": "Whether and when noncitizens may receive particular types of government assistance can be difficult to ascertain because of the various federal, state, and local laws governing their eligibility for such assistance. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 was enacted to establish \u201cnational policy with respect to welfare and immigration.\u201d With certain exceptions, PRWORA bars aliens who are not \u201cqualified aliens\u201d from receiving federal, state, or local \u201cpublic benefits,\u201d and also precludes qualified aliens from receiving \u201cfederal means-tested public benefits\u201d for five or more years after they enter the United States in a qualified status. However, there are also a number of federal, state, and local measures adopted prior to, or after, PRWORA, some of which make different provisions for noncitizens\u2019 eligibility for particular benefits. The application of these measures can raise complicated issues of constitutional law, statutory interpretation, and administrative law. \nThe constitutional guarantee of equal protection applies to all \u201cpersons\u201d within the United States, including aliens. Thus, measures governing eligibility for public benefits could be subject to legal challenge if they treat aliens differently than citizens. Because of Congress\u2019s plenary power over immigration, federal measures that distinguish between aliens and citizens will generally be upheld so long as they are rationally related to a legitimate government interest. State and local measures, in contrast, are generally subject to some type of heightened scrutiny, the degree of which can vary depending upon the benefit involved and the aliens\u2019 status. However, state and local measures that follow a \u201cuniform rule\u201d established by Congress could potentially receive the same deferential review afforded to federal measures. Courts have reached differing conclusions as to whether PRWORA establishes such a uniform rule. Courts have also disagreed as to whether measures that treat lawful nonimmigrant aliens differently from citizens are subject to the same level of scrutiny as those that distinguish between lawful immigrant aliens and citizens. \nQuestions can also arise as to whether particular state and local measures are preempted by federal law. Some states and localities, concerned about the presence of unauthorized aliens within their jurisdiction, have recently enacted measures which would define benefits or related terms more broadly than PRWORA does, and further restrict aliens\u2019 eligibility for them. Such measures could potentially be challenged on preemption grounds because the Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate immigration. State and local measures that purport to determine the conditions upon which aliens may enter or remain in the United States are, per se, preempted. Federal statutes can also preempt state and local measures by expressly prohibiting them, containing conflicting requirements, or occupying the field.\nMoreover, in the application of particular measures, there have been questions about whether particular government programs, services, or types of assistance are benefits. For example, although PRWORA includes certain types of assistance within its definitions of public benefit, it also refers to \u201cany other similar benefit.\u201d Parties have litigated whether particular assistance constitutes a benefit \u201csimilar\u201d to those governed by PRWORA. They have also litigated whether PRWORA bars aliens from receiving benefits whose provision entails the expenditure of appropriated funds, even if the aliens themselves must pay a fee for the benefit; as well as what it means for a state to \u201caffirmatively provide\u201d for eligibility. Similarly, because PRWORA does not affirmatively define \u201cfederal means-tested public benefits,\u201d there has been debate about the degree of deference to be accorded to agency interpretations of this term as encompassing only five mandatory spending programs (e.g., Medicaid), and no discretionary spending programs.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43221",
          "sha1": "2521fc5f63cd370ae882c99e964e97797375bec1",
          "filename": "files/20130909_R43221_2521fc5f63cd370ae882c99e964e97797375bec1.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43221",
          "sha1": "6b375b0965db2c6cac9515d87d8d7b4b65ebbd10",
          "filename": "files/20130909_R43221_6b375b0965db2c6cac9515d87d8d7b4b65ebbd10.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Constitutional Questions"
  ]
}