PRWORA’s Restrictions on Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Benefits: Legal Issues

PRWORA’s Restrictions on Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Benefits: Legal Issues

PRWORA’s Restrictions on Noncitizen
September 3, 2020
Eligibility for Federal Public Benefits:
Ben Harrington
Legal Issues
Legislative Attorney

Title IV of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996
(PRWORA) restricts the eligibility of non-U.S. nationals (aliens) for many federal benefit

programs. It applies to federal health care, housing, welfare, unemployment, and retirement
benefits, as well as many other types of federal benefits. Before PRWORA, individual program statutes established the
eligibility restrictions for aliens, if any, that applied to particular programs. A major purpose of PRWORA was to establish a
set of uniform and restrictive eligibility criteria for a broad array of federal benefits. PRWORA also establishes default
restrictions on alien eligibility for state and local benefits. Those restrictions, which states can override with affirmative
legislation, are not the subject of this report but may be addressed in future CRS products.
Under PRWORA’s baseline rule for federal benefits, only “qualified aliens” are eligible for benefits that fall within the
statute’s definition of “federal public benefit.” Qualified aliens include lawful permanent residents, asylees, refugees, and
some other groups. This baseline rule, which has some exceptions, bars nonqualified aliens such as holders of Temporary
Protected Status (TPS), recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), and nonimmigrants from receiving
federal public benefits. Beyond the baseline rule, the statute imposes additional restrictions on the eligibility of qualified
aliens for certain major federal benefit programs, including Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental
Security Income (SSI), Medicaid, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
Whether PRWORA’s baseline “qualified alien” restriction applies to a particular federal program typically depends on two
legal questions. The first question is whether the program delivers benefits that constitute “federal public benefits” under the
PRWORA definition. There is no doubt that TANF, SSI, Medicaid, and SNAP fall within the definition, although this
certainty comes more from other provisions of PRWORA than the language of the definition itself. By establishing
specialized eligibility rules for these major programs, PRWORA makes obvious that its restrictions apply to them. Outside of
these major programs, however, determining whether a given benefit constitutes a “federal public benefit” requires
interpretation of multiple elements in the PRWORA definition. In the absence of clear guidance on the issue from agencies or
courts, confusion about the correct interpretation sometimes emerges.
The second question that often arises is whether PRWORA’s “qualified alien” restriction overrides eligibility rules from
other statutes. PRWORA provides that its blanket eligibility rules apply “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law,” but
the Act did not repeal the sundry preexisting eligibility criteria in specific program statutes. Where these preexisting
eligibility rules differ from PRWORA, uncertainty may result about which rules govern. Similarly, when Congress creates
new benefit programs without mentioning PRWORA or establishing clear rules for alien eligibility, confusion can arise as to
whether the PRWORA restrictions apply. Much case law stands for the proposition that the statutory language
“notwithstanding any other provision of law” unambiguously overrides inconsistent provisions of other statutes. However,
some courts have recognized limitations to this proposition, and other principles of statutory interpretation may be invoked in
favor of the eligibility criteria in specific program statutes. The power of PRWORA’s “notwithstanding” clause to override
inconsistent provisions of other statutes remains unclear, particularly with respect to later-enacted statutes.
Federal unemployment benefits and federal student aid programs provide two illustrative examples of the interpretive issues
that often arise under PRWORA. Both types of benefits, when federally funded, would appear to constitute “federal public
benefits” under the plain language of the PRWORA definition, although there is little federal agency guidance or caselaw to
confirm that conclusion. Further, both types of benefits are subject to eligibility rules for aliens that predate PRWORA and
that are, to varying degrees, broader than the PRWORA “qualified alien” rule. After PRWORA, federal agencies appear to
have continued applying these earlier eligibility rules. Their legal basis for doing so remains largely unexplained. When
Congress enacted new types of federal unemployment and student aid benefits in response to the Coronavirus Disease 2019
(COVID-19) pandemic in 2020, the question of whether PRWORA restricted alien eligibility for the new benefits generated
confusion and litigation.

Congressional Research Service

link to page 6 link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 12 link to page 13 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 19 link to page 19 link to page 21 link to page 22 link to page 22 link to page 26 link to page 28 link to page 30 link to page 33 link to page 35 link to page 37 PRWORA’s Restrictions on Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Benefits: Legal Issues

Contents
What Are the PRWORA Restrictions on Alien Eligibility? ............................................................ 3
Which Federal Benefit Programs Are Subject to the PRWORA Restrictions? ............................... 5
PRWORA’s “Federal Public Benefit” Definition ..................................................................... 6
Category 1: Programs for Which PRWORA Makes Special Provision .............................. 9
Category 2: Programs That Deliver Enumerated Benefits ................................................ 10
Category 3: Programs That Deliver Non-enumerated Benefits That Are Arguably
“Similar” to Enumerated Benefits ................................................................................. 13
PRWORA’s Interplay with Other Statutes .............................................................................. 16
Retrospective Application of PRWORA ........................................................................... 16
Prospective Application of PRWORA .............................................................................. 18
Case Studies .................................................................................................................................. 19
Federally Funded Unemployment Insurance Benefits ............................................................ 19
Federal Unemployment Benefits Created After PRWORA .............................................. 23
Federal Student Aid ................................................................................................................. 25
Emergency Financial Aid Under the CARES Act............................................................. 27
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 30

Appendixes
Appendix. Glossary ....................................................................................................................... 32

Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 34

Congressional Research Service

PRWORA’s Restrictions on Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Benefits: Legal Issues

itle IV of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996
(“PRWORA”),1 codified at 8 U.S.C. §§ 1601–1646, establishes a set of overarching rules
T that restrict the eligibility of non-U.S. nationals (aliens)2 for public benefits.3 These
restrictions apply to a wide range of federal and state benefits, including health care, housing,
welfare, unemployment, and retirement benefits, among many others.4
Before PRWORA, the authorizing statute for each federal benefit program generally established
its immigration-related eligibility criteria or lack thereof.5 The statutes for several major federal
programs—including Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Medicaid, and the version of federal
welfare that existed before PRWORA (Aid to Families with Dependent Children, or AFDC)—
limited eligibility to aliens who were “permanently residing [in the United States] under color of
law,”6 an ill-defined category known by the acronym “PRUCOL.”7 Other program statutes did not

1 Pub. L. No. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105, 2260 (1996).
2 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(3) (“The term ‘alien’ means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.”). Some
have criticized the term as offensive, but it is woven so deeply into PRWORA and the wider body of federal
immigration statutes that avoiding its use when analyzing them would be difficult. Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392,
2443 n.7 (2018) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) (“It is important to note . . . that many consider ‘using the term “alien” to
refer to other human beings’ to be ‘offensive and demeaning.’ I use the term here only where necessary ‘to be
consistent with the statutory language’ that Congress has chosen and ‘to avoid any confusion in replacing a legal term
of art with a more appropriate term.’”) (quoting Flores v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 718 F.3d
548, 551-552 n. 1 (6th Cir. 2013)); but cf. Barton v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1442, 1446 n.2 (2020) (“This opinion uses the term
‘noncitizen’ as equivalent to the statutory term ‘alien.’”).
3 See, e.g., Pimentel v. Dreyfus, 670 F.3d 1096, 1099 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[T]he Welfare Reform Act (or ‘PRWORA’) . . .
dramatically altered alien-eligibility requirements for federal public benefits and for state and local public benefits.”);
Lewis v. Thompson, 252 F.3d 567, 577 (2d Cir. 2001) (“In the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, Congress altered the terrain
. . . by imposing sweeping restrictions on aliens’ access to federally sponsored government aid.”). PRWORA is
sometimes called the “Welfare Reform Act,” see Pimentel, 670 F.3d at 1099; Soskin v. Reinertson, 353 F.3d 1242,
1245 (10th Cir. 2004), perhaps because, aside from establishing in Title IV the immigration-related eligibility
restrictions examined in this report, other titles of the Act reformed major federal welfare and nutritional assistance
programs in ways unrelated to immigration. See Stone v. McGowan, 308 F. Supp. 2d 79, 86 (N.D.N.Y. 2004)
(“PRWORA replaced the ‘Aid to Families with Dependent Children (“AFDC”)’ program with the ‘Temporary
Assistance to Needy Families (“TANF”)’ program . . . .”); Arizona v. Shalala, 121 F. Supp. 2d 40, 44–45 (D.D.C.
2000) (“[PRWORA] drastically altered the federal/state balance as well as the relationship between cash assistance,
Medicaid, and Food Stamps.”); see generally Christine N. Cimini, The New Contract: Welfare Reform, Devolution, and
Due Process, 61 MD. L. REV. 246 (2002) (“[T]he Welfare Reform Act was designed to promote job preparation, work
and marriage among recipients, and to increase administrative flexibility for states.”).
4 8 U.S.C. §§ 1611, 1621; see Pimentel, 670 F.3d at 1099.
5 See H.R. REP. NO. 104–725, at 379 (1996) (“Current law limits alien eligibility for most major Federal assistance
programs, including restrictions on, among other programs, Supplemental Security Income, Aid to Families with
Dependent Children, housing assistance, and Food Stamps programs. Current law is silent on alienage under, among
other programs, school lunch and nutrition, the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children
(WIC), Head Start, migrant health centers, and the earned income credit.”); see also, e.g., Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S.
67, 70 (1976) (upholding the constitutionality of 42 U.S.C. § 1395o(2), which denied Medicare Part B eligibility to
aliens “unless they ha[d] been admitted for permanent residence and also ha[d] resided in the United States for at least
five years”).
6 H.R. REP. NO. 104–725, at 379-80 (1996). The Medicaid statute did not establish any eligibility restrictions based on
immigration status until 1986, when Congress amended it to limit eligibility to PRUCOL aliens. Lewis v. Thompson,
252 F.3d 567, 573-74 (2d Cir. 2001). Previously, a federal agency had established the PRUCOL requirement by
regulation, but a federal court held that the regulation violated the statute. Id. at 573.
7 Lewis, 252 F.3d at 571-72 (2d Cir. 2001) (“PRUCOL . . . is an amorphous and ‘elastic’ [status], but this Court has
read it to include at least those aliens who are residing in the United States with the INS’s knowledge and permission
and whom the INS does not contemplate deporting.”); Esparza v. Valdez, 862 F.2d 788, 791-93 (10th Cir. 1988)
(noting competing federal court, federal agency, and state court interpretations of PRUCOL); cf. 20 C.F.R. §
416.202(b)(3) (regulation listing seventeen categories of PRUCOL aliens, including one catchall category, for purposes
of eligibility for supplemental security income).
Congressional Research Service
1

link to page 12 link to page 21 link to page 21 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 30 PRWORA’s Restrictions on Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Benefits: Legal Issues

establish any eligibility criteria for aliens.8 Sometimes Congress used a single act to amend
eligibility rules for aliens in the authorizing statutes of multiple programs at once, but the rules
for each program generally remained in that program’s particular authorizing statute.9 A major
purpose of PRWORA was to establish a set of restrictive, uniform rules that would apply across a
broad spectrum of federal benefit programs.10
PRWORA raises a number of legal issues with respect to federal benefit programs. For the most
part, these legal issues involve determining which federal programs are governed by the statute’s
overarching eligibility restrictions. While PRWORA’s applicability is clear for four major federal
benefit programs—Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Security
Income (SSI), Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), and Medicaid11—its
applicability to other federal programs is often ambiguous. Often, uncertainty about PRWORA’s
applicability arises because individual program statutes continue to set forth different
immigration-related eligibility rules.12 PRWORA provides that its blanket eligibility rules apply
“[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law,” but the Act did not repeal the sundry preexisting
eligibility criteria in specific program statutes, such as those for federal student aid programs in
the Higher Education Act and those for unemployment insurance in the Federal Unemployment
Tax Act.13 Agencies and courts must therefore determine how the divergent eligibility criteria fit
together. PRWORA’s applicability is also often unclear where a federal program delivers benefits
of a type that PRWORA does not reference specifically but that are arguably similar to referenced
benefit types,14 and where the federal benefits in question were created after PRWORA’s
enactment.15
This report explores these legal issues with respect to federal benefit programs. First, the report
reviews the basic rules that PRWORA establishes for alien eligibility for federal public benefits.
Second, the report analyzes PRWORA’s definition of “federal public benefit” and examines the
legal issues that arise when applying the definition to particular federal benefit programs. Third,

8 H.R. REP. NO. 104–725, at 379 (1996).
9 See Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359, 3384-94 (1986) (amending
Social Security Act and housing and education statutes to impose immigration status verification requirements). IRCA
also imposed a general restriction on federal benefits eligibility for aliens who legalized their status through the
statute’s major legalization program for aliens who had been unlawfully present since 1982. Id. at 3401 (“Temporary
disqualification of newly legalized aliens from receiving certain public welfare assistance”). This eligibility restriction
thus applied across a spectrum of benefit programs, but because it applied only to one category of aliens (those who
legalized through IRCA), it did not constitute the type of overarching eligibility rule that PRWORA would impose in
1996. Compare id. with 8 U.S.C. § 1611(a) (“Notwithstanding any other provision of law . . . , an alien who is not a
qualified alien (as defined in section 1641 of this title) is not eligible for any Federal public benefit . . . .”).
10 See 8 U.S.C. § 1601 (Statements of national policy concerning welfare and immigration) (stating that “[c]urrent
eligibility rules for public assistance and unenforceable financial support agreements have proved wholly incapable of
assuring that individual aliens not burden the public benefits system,” and that “[i]t is a compelling government interest
to enact new rules for eligibility and sponsorship agreements in order to assure that aliens be self-reliant in accordance
with national immigration policy”); Korab v. Fink, 797 F.3d 572, 581 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[PRWORA] establishes a
uniform federal structure for providing welfare benefits to distinct classes of aliens.”).
11 See infra “Category 1: Programs for Which PRWORA Makes Special Provision.”
12 See, e.g., Mashiri v. Dep’t of Educ., 724 F.3d 1028, 1033 (9th Cir. 2013) (not resolving whether divergent eligibility
criteria in Higher Education Act “precluded the application of” PRWORA); see generally infra “Prospective
Application of PRWORA.”
13 See 8 U.S.C. § 1611(a).
14 See infra “Category 3: Programs That Deliver Non-enumerated Benefits That Are Arguably “Similar” to Enumerated
Benefits.”
15 See infra “Emergency Financial Aid Under the CARES Act.”
Congressional Research Service
2

PRWORA’s Restrictions on Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Benefits: Legal Issues

the report analyzes PRWORA’s interplay with other federal statutes that govern federal public
benefit programs and that sometimes establish different eligibility rules for aliens for particular
programs. Finally, the last section of the report examines two case studies—federal
unemployment benefits and federal student aid benefits—to illustrate the legal issues discussed in
the previous two sections of the report.
PRWORA also establishes default restrictions on alien eligibility for state and local benefits.16
Those restrictions,17 which states can override with affirmative legislation, are not the subject of
this report but may be addressed in future CRS products.
What Are the PRWORA Restrictions on Alien
Eligibility?
As discussed later, PRWORA gives rise to significant legal issues about whether its eligibility
restrictions for aliens apply to particular federal programs. The eligibility restrictions themselves,
however, are relatively clear. Once the determination is made that PRWORA restrictions apply to
a benefit program, the statute does not leave significant ambiguity as to which categories of aliens
it renders ineligible.
PRWORA’s framework of eligibility restrictions for federal benefits may be summarized as
follows (bolded terms are defined in the glossary at the end of the report):
1. Aliens who are not qualified aliens are not eligible for federal public benefits.18
a. Exceptions:
 treatment of emergency medical conditions;
 “short-term, non-cash, in-kind emergency disaster relief”;19
 non-cash community assistance programs “such as soup kitchens,
crisis counseling and intervention, and short-term shelter” specified
by the Attorney General that are necessary to protect life and safety;
 “lawfully present” aliens are eligible for benefits under Title II of the
Social Security Act (i.e., retirement, survivors, and disability
benefits) and for Medicare Part A benefits; and

16 8 U.S.C. § 1621.
17 PRWORA’s provisions about state benefit programs also raise significant issues of statutory interpretation,
federalism, and constitutional law. Many of these issues concern the reach of the states’ statutory and constitutional
authority to create their own restrictions on alien eligibility for benefits that they administer. See, e.g., Bruns v.
Mayhew, 750 F.3d 61, 63 (1st Cir. 2014) (rejecting equal protection challenge to Maine’s termination of state-funded
health care benefits for aliens ineligible for Medicaid under PRWORA); Korab, 797 F.3d at 583-84 (rejecting equal
protection challenge to Hawaii’s reduction of state-funded health benefits for certain nonimmigrants ineligible for
Medicaid under PRWORA); Pimentel v. Dreyfus, 670 F.3d 1096, 1098 (9th Cir. 2012) (rejecting similar challenges to
Washington State’s termination of state-funded food assistance program for some aliens); but see Aliessa ex. rel. Fayad
v. Novello, 96 N.Y. 2d 418, 433 (N.Y. 2001) (holding that PRWORA cannot “constitutionally authorize New York to
determine for itself the extent to which it will discriminate against legal aliens for State Medicaid eligibility”).
18 8 U.S.C. § 1611(a).
19 For an analysis of this exception, see Poder in Action v. City of Phoenix, No. CV-20-01429, 2020 WL 5038582, at
*8-*9 (D. Ariz. Aug. 26, 2020).
Congressional Research Service
3

PRWORA’s Restrictions on Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Benefits: Legal Issues

 other exceptions specified in 8 U.S.C. § 1611(b).20
2. Qualified aliens are not eligible for federal means-tested public benefits until five years after
they enter the United States in a qualified alien status (in other words, there is a five-year
waiting period for qualified aliens to receive these benefits).21
a. Exceptions:
 refugees, asylees, lawfully residing veterans and members of the
Armed Forces, and other categories of aliens described in 8 U.S.C. §
1613(b);
 certain “assistance and benefits” listed in § 1613(c), including
treatment of emergency medical conditions and non-cash, short-term
disaster relief;
 groups described in § 1613(d)—e.g., certain American Indians born in
Canada—who are seeking SNAP, SSI, or Medicaid.
3. Qualified aliens are not eligible for SSI or SNAP.22 (PRWORA calls these two programs
“specified federal programs.”)23
a. Exceptions:
 lawful permanent residents (LPRs) with forty qualifying quarters of
work history;
 aliens admitted to the United States within the prior seven years as
refugees, asylees, or in other statuses listed in 8 U.S.C. §
1612(a)(2)(A);
 for SNAP only, qualified aliens under age 18 and qualified aliens who
have been in the United States for five years in any status;24 and
 other exceptions listed in 8 U.S.C. § 1612(a)(2).
4. States may impose additional restrictions on qualified alien eligibility for TANF, Medicaid, and
Social Services Block Grant programs (SSBG).25 (PRWORA calls these three programs
“designated federal programs.”)26
a. Exceptions: States may not limit the eligibility of
 LPRs with forty qualifying quarters of work history;

20 Id. § 1611(b) (exceptions).
21 Id. § 1613(a).
22 Id. § 1612(a).
23 Id. § 1612(a)(3).
24 Under a separate statute, a state may issue SNAP benefits to qualified aliens who are ineligible for the benefits under
§ 1612(a) and § 1613(a), but the state must reimburse the federal government for the benefits. 7 U.S.C. § 2016(i);
Pimentel v. Dreyfus, 670 F.3d 1096, 1100-01 (9th Cir. 2012).
25 8 U.S.C. § 1612(b); see Tennessee v. Dep’t of State, 329 F. Supp. 3d 597, 606 (W.D. Tenn. 2018) (“Five years
following their entry into the United States, qualified aliens may be considered eligible for certain designated federal
programs, including Medicaid.”), aff’d, 931 F.3d 499 (6th Cir. 2019).
26 8 U.S.C. § 1612(b)(3).
Congressional Research Service
4

link to page 35 PRWORA’s Restrictions on Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Benefits: Legal Issues

 refugees, asylees, and other specified categories of aliens for five
years (seven years for Medicaid) following their admission to the
United States in that status;
 other groups of aliens described in 8 U.S.C. § 1612(b)(2).27
Thus, PRWORA establishes one baseline eligibility rule for federal public benefits and a series of
additional rules for specific categories of federal public benefits (e.g., means-tested federal public
benefits). The baseline rule, which has important exceptions, is that an alien must fall within one
of the eight categories listed in the definition of “qualified alien” to be eligible for federal public
benefits.28 For example, LPRs, asylees, and refugees are “qualified aliens,” but Deferred Action
for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders are
not.29 For this reason, DACA recipients and TPS holders—to name just two examples of
nonqualified alien categories—do not qualify for federal public benefits under PRWORA unless
an exception applies (such as the exception for emergency medical treatment).30
Moving beyond the baseline rule, even LPRs must wait five years to be eligible for means-tested
benefits such as Medicaid, TANF, SSI, and SNAP.31 LPRs also must accumulate a ten-year work
history to be eligible for SSI, SNAP, and (in some states) Medicaid, TANF, and SSBG.32 Other
categories of qualified aliens, such as asylees and refugees in the country for more than a certain
number of years who have yet to adjust to LPR status, do not qualify for some of these benefit
types at all.33
For more detail about the eligibility rules for major federal benefit programs broken down by
immigration status, see CRS Report RL33809, Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public
Assistance: Policy Overview, coordinated by Abigail F. Kolker.
Which Federal Benefit Programs Are Subject to the
PRWORA Restrictions?
Where the PRWORA eligibility restrictions apply, their consequences for particular categories of
aliens are rather clear, as described above. Determining whether the restrictions apply to a federal
benefit program, however, is often the source of legal confusion. This issue turns primarily upon

27 Id. § 1612(b)(2) (exceptions). A federal district court held in 2018 that the provision in § 1612(b) requiring states to
extend coverage for Medicaid to certain refugees does not violate the Tenth Amendment. See Tennessee v. Dep’t of
State, 329 F. Supp. 3d 597, 625 (W.D. Tenn. 2018); aff’d on other grounds, 931 F.3d 499 (6th Cir. 2019).
28 See, e.g., Korab v. Fink, 797 F.3d 572, 575 (9th Cir. 2014); Pimentel v. Dreyfus, 670 F.3d 1096, 1100 (9th Cir. 2012)
(“Qualified” status is essentially a prerequisite for federal benefits . . . .”). For the groups that fall within the definition
of qualified alien, see the Glossary in the Appendix.
29 8 U.S.C. § 1641. For definitions of immigration statuses such a “refugee” and “asylee,” as well as other immigration
terms, see the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Glossary, available at
https://www.uscis.gov/tools/glossary.
30 See Korab, 797 F.3d at 575 (“The Act renders aliens who are not qualified aliens ineligible for all federal public
benefits, with only limited exceptions, such as the provision of emergency medical assistance.”).
31 8 U.S.C. § 1613(a); see, e.g., Odi v. Alexander, 378 F. Supp. 3d 365, 382 (E.D. Pa. 2019) (explaining that an LPR
who “had not had LPR status for five years . . . was indisputably” barred from Medicaid eligibility under § 1613(a),
except for emergency treatment).
32 8 U.S.C. § 1612(a), (b). For Medicaid, a later statute expressly overrides PRWORA to give states the option extend
coverage to “lawfully residing” children and pregnant women. 42 U.S.C. § 1396b(v)(4)(A) (providing states such
flexibility “notwithstanding sections 1611(a), 1612(b), 1613, and 1631 of Title 8”).
33 8 U.S.C. § 1612(a)(2)(A) (providing for refugee and asylee eligibility for SSI and SNAP only during the first seven
years in such status).
Congressional Research Service
5

PRWORA’s Restrictions on Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Benefits: Legal Issues

two questions: (1) whether the program delivers benefits that fit PRWORA’s definition of
“federal public benefit”; and (2) whether divergent language about alien eligibility in other
statutes limits or overrides the PRWORA restrictions.
This section begins by reviewing the “federal public benefit” definition. It then discusses how the
definition applies to three categories of federal programs: (1) major federal programs for which
PRWORA makes special provision, such as Medicaid, SNAP, SSI, and TANF; (2) programs that
deliver benefits enumerated in the “federal public benefit” definition; and (3) programs that
deliver benefits that are arguably “similar to” the enumerated benefits. The benefits delivered by
the first category of programs clearly constitute “federal public benefits” governed by PRWORA.
The second and third categories raise more difficult issues.
Next, the section reviews the interpretive issues that arise when the PRWORA restrictions conflict
with or are in tension with eligibility language in other statutes. These interpretive issues come in
two main varieties: (1) retrospective issues, concerning statutes that predate PRWORA; and (2)
prospective issues, concerning statutes enacted after PRWORA.
PRWORA’s “Federal Public Benefit” Definition
PRWORA defines “federal public benefit” as follows:
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), for purposes of this chapter the term “Federal
public benefit” means—
(A) any grant, contract, loan, professional license, or commercial license provided by
an agency of the United States or by appropriated funds of the United States; and
(B) any retirement, welfare, health, disability, public or assisted housing,
postsecondary education, food assistance, unemployment benefit, or any other similar
benefit for which payments or assistance are provided to an individual, household, or
family eligibility unit by an agency of the United States or by appropriated funds of
the United States.34
The next paragraph in the statute specifies some benefit types that do not count as federal public
benefits, such as professional licenses for nonimmigrants admitted to work in that profession.35
The “federal public benefit” definition requires interpretation because it does not identify the
specific federal programs that fall within its scope.36 Two federal agencies—the Department of
Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)—have published
interpretations of the “federal public benefit” definition.37 DOJ and HHS interpret prong (A)
similarly, but their interpretations of prong (B) differ in some respects.
Under both agencies’ interpretations of prong (A), it covers programs that provide one of the
enumerated benefit types (e.g., grants, loans) to individuals through a federal agency or with

34 Id. § 1611(c)(1).
35 Id. § 1611(c)(2).
36 Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., Interpretation of “Federal Public Benefit,” 63 Fed. Reg. 41,658, 41,659 (Aug. 4,
1998) (“PRWORA does not identify the specific benefits that are ‘Federal public benefits,’ and the definition in section
401(c), standing alone, does not provide sufficient guidance for benefit providers to make that determination.”)
[hereinafter HHS Guidance].
37 Id.; Dep’t of Justice, Interim Guidance on Verification of Citizenship, Qualified Alien Status and Eligibility Under
Title IV of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, 62 Fed. Reg. 61,344 (Nov.
17, 1997) [hereinafter DOJ Guidance].
Congressional Research Service
6

link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9 PRWORA’s Restrictions on Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Benefits: Legal Issues

federally appropriated funds.38 Thus, in the words of the DOJ guidance, if a program “provides a
‘grant,’ ‘contract,’ ‘loan,’ ‘professional license,’ or ‘commercial license’ to an individual, either
through a U.S. agency or with U.S. appropriated funds, then [the program] provide[s] a ‘federal
public benefit.’”39
Prong (B) of the definition is more complicated, primarily because it contains catchall language
that prong (A) does not. To be a federal public benefit under prong (B), according to the agency
interpretations, a federal program must meet three elements.40 The benefits that the program
provides must be (1) one of the enumerated benefit types (e.g., welfare, public housing) or
“similar” to them; (2) provided by a federal agency or with appropriated federal funds; and (3)
provided to “an individual, household, or family eligibility unit.”41 Unlike benefits identified
under prong (A), a program’s benefits do not necessarily fall outside of prong (B) simply because
they are not enumerated therein.42 Instead, the first element of prong (B) requires an assessment
of whether a program’s benefits are “similar” to those enumerated in that prong.43 (This catchall
language is analyzed further below in the subsection titled “Category 3: Programs That Deliver
Non-enumerated Benefits That Are Arguably “Similar” to Enumerated Benefits.”) As for the third
element, concerning benefit recipients, the HHS interpretation takes the position that a benefit
program does not meet it unless the statute authorizing the program has exclusive eligibility
criteria—that is, unless it “mandate[s] ineligibility” for certain recipients.44 The DOJ
interpretation does not include this additional gloss about the third element.45 This divergence in
the agency interpretations could affect decisions about PRWORA’s applicability to federally
funded, enumerated benefit types that are generally available to broad categories of recipients,
such as a new form of emergency financial aid that Congress created in 2020 and made generally
available to higher education students.46 At least one federal court has analyzed this point of
divergence between the two agency interpretations and rejected the HHS interpretation as
unpersuasive.47

38 DOJ Guidance, supra note 37, at 61,361; HHS Guidance, supra note 36, at 41,659.
39 DOJ Guidance, supra note 37, at 61,361.
40 Id.; HHS Guidance, supra note 36, at 41,659. The HHS Guidance actually describes a two-part test, but the effect is
the same because it combines two elements of the DOJ test (the provision of benefits to an enumerated category of
recipient, and provision by a federal agency or with appropriated funds) into a single two-part element. Id.
41 DOJ Guidance, supra note 37, at 61,361; HHS Guidance, supra note 36, at 41,659. The HHS Guidance actually
describes the test as having two parts, but the effect is the same because it combines the last two parts of the DOJ test
into a single element. Id.
42 DOJ Guidance, supra note 37, at 61,361.
43 Id. (“If your program provides payments or assistance to an individual, household or family eligibility unit through a
U.S. agency or by U.S. appropriated funds, but the benefits are not expressly enumerated above, you should consider
whether the benefits are ‘similar’ to one of the benefits enumerated in (b).”); HHS Guidance, supra note 36, at 41,659.
44 HHS Guidance, supra note 36, at 41,659 (“[I]n order for a program to be determined to provide benefits to
‘eligibility units’ the authorizing statute must be interpreted to mandate ineligibility for individuals, households, or
families that do not meet certain criteria, such as a specified income level or a specified age.”).
45 DOJ Guidance, supra note 37, at 61,361.
46 See Oakley v. DeVos, No. 20-cv-03215-YGR, 2020 WL 3268661, at *14 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2020) (citing HHS
Guidance); Pls. Reply in Support of Mot. For Prelim. Inj, Oakley v. DeVos, No. 20-cv-03215-YGR, Dkt. no. 21, at 12
(N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (relying on the HHS Guidance to argue that PRWORA does not apply to a form of federally
funded emergency financial aid that does not contain criteria mandating ineligibility for certain students).
47 Poder in Action v. City of Phoenix, No. CV-20-01429, 2020 WL 5038582, at *8 (D. Ariz. Aug. 26, 2020) (“Not only
did HHS fail to explain why a benefit program’s status should turn on whether Congress explicitly laid out the
eligibility criteria in the statutory text, but HHS’s approach would result in a large number of benefit programs falling
outside PRWORA’s reach, which would run counter to Congress’s intent in enacting PRWORA.”).
Congressional Research Service
7

link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9 PRWORA’s Restrictions on Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Benefits: Legal Issues

Under the agency interpretations, neither prong of the “federal public benefit” definition
encompasses benefits provided to public or private entities. As such, grants, loans, and other
enumerated benefit types provided to those entities—rather than to individuals or households—do
not themselves count as federal public benefits.48 However, under the DOJ guidance, PRWORA
still restricts how entities use federal funds to deliver benefits to individuals.49 As DOJ puts it, if
an entity uses federal grant money “to provide a ‘federal public benefit’—e.g., a ‘loan’ or
‘welfare’ payment to a poor ‘individual, household or family eligibility unit’—then . . . non-
qualified aliens would be ineligible for such benefits.”50 In other words, PRWORA’s restrictions
carry through to state, local, and private benefit providers that deliver federally funded benefits.51
At least two federal court decisions support this interpretation.52 The language of the federal
public benefit definition also appears to support the interpretation, by encompassing benefits
provided with federal funds even if they are not provided by a federal agency.53 The HHS
Guidance appears to support the interpretation as well, although it does not address the issue
thoroughly.54
Still, the general rule that PRWORA’s restrictions carry through to public and private entities that
deliver federally funded benefits has an important limitation for “nonprofit, charitable
organizations.”55 PRWORA does not require such organizations to verify recipient immigration
status when using federal funds to pay out federal public benefits to individuals or households.56
The agency interpretations described above were issued as guidance that did not go through the
notice and comment rulemaking process set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for
agency rules with the force of law.57 As such, the interpretations may not trigger the highest level
of judicial deference from federal courts.58 Nonetheless, the DOJ and HHS interpretations

48 DOJ Guidance, supra note 37, at 61,361; HHS Guidance, supra note 36, at 41,659.
49 DOJ Guidance, supra note 37, at 61,361.
50 Id. at 61,361-62.
51 See id.
52 Pimentel v. Dreyfus, 670 F.3d 1096, 1099 n.4 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[A] federally funded benefit is still considered a
‘federal public benefit’ even if administered by a state or local agency.”); Uriostegui v. Alabama Crime Victims Comp.
Comm’n, No. 2:10-CV-1265-PWG, 2010 WL 11613802, at *14 (N.D. Ala. Nov. 16, 2010), report and
recommendation adopted, No. 2:10-CV-1265-LSC, 2011 WL 13285298 (N.D. Ala. Jan. 12, 2011).
53 See 8 U.S.C. § 1611(c)(1)(A), (B) (covering enumerated benefits “provided by an agency of the United States or by
appropriated funds of the United States”).
54 HHS Guidance, supra note 36, at 41,661 (“Without prompt issuance of this interpretation, state and local
governments and other public and private benefit providers will remain confused over how to implement the
requirements of Title IV of PRWORA.”).
55 DOJ Guidance, supra note 37, at 61,345-46.
56 8 U.S.C. § 1642(d) (“[A] nonprofit charitable organization, in providing any Federal public benefit (as defined in
section 1611(c) of this title) or any State or local public benefit (as defined in section 1621(c) of this title), is not
required under this chapter to determine, verify, or otherwise require proof of eligibility of any applicant for such
benefits.”). Other statutes, however, may require such organizations to verify immigration status notwithstanding the
exception in PRWORA. DOJ Guidance, supra note 37, at 61,346 (“[I]ndependent requirements are not altered by the
provision exempting nonprofit charitable organizations from [PRWORA]’s verification requirements.”). If an
organization that falls within the exemption chooses to verify immigration status on its own initiative, then PRWORA
still prohibits the organization from delivering federal public benefits to nonqualified aliens. Id.
57 DOJ Guidance, supra note 37, at 61,345; HHS Guidance, supra note 36, at 41,660-61. On APA notice and comment
requirements, see CRS Report R44356, The Good Cause Exception to Notice and Comment Rulemaking: Judicial
Review of Agency Action, by Jared P. Cole, at 1.
58 See CRS Report R44954, Chevron Deference: A Primer, by Valerie C. Brannon and Jared P. Cole, at 5; cf. United
States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 226-27 (2001) (“[A]dministrative implementation of a particular statutory
provision qualifies for Chevron deference when it appears that Congress delegated authority to the agency generally to
Congressional Research Service
8

link to page 25 link to page 9 PRWORA’s Restrictions on Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Benefits: Legal Issues

represent perhaps the most thorough analysis of the “federal public benefit” definition issued by
agencies or courts.59 More formal agency interpretations of the “federal public benefit” definition
are lacking. DOJ proposed regulations to implement the PRWORA eligibility rules, in conformity
with a provision of the statute that charged DOJ with this responsibility,60 but it never finalized
them.61 Other agencies have issued regulations reflecting determinations that PRWORA applies to
particular federal programs, but these regulations do not offer broad interpretations of the “federal
public benefit” definition.62 Judicial interpretation of the definition has also been sparse, as
discussed in more detail below.63
Category 1: Programs for Which PRWORA Makes Special Provision
PRWORA leaves little doubt that the benefits delivered by some major federal programs fall
within the sweep of its restrictions. In provisions outside of the “federal public benefit” definition,
PRWORA makes clear that its eligibility framework applies to a set of “specified” or
“designated” federal programs, including Medicaid, TANF, SSI, SNAP, and SSBG. Specifically,
PRWORA cites the authorizing statutes for these programs and establishes additional eligibility
restrictions for them in 8 U.S.C. § 1612 that go beyond the “qualified alien” requirement.64
These major, federally funded programs deliver benefits enumerated in the “federal public
benefit” definition and therefore appear to fit within it (e.g., Medicaid delivers “health” benefits;
TANF delivers “welfare” benefits).65 But because PRWORA creates special eligibility rules for
these programs, it is not necessary to parse the elements of the “federal public benefit” definition
to determine that PRWORA restricts eligibility for them.66
Later statutes may expressly amend or override PRWORA to ease eligibility restrictions for these
programs.67 Short of such an express exception, however, the PRWORA eligibility rules clearly

make rules carrying the force of law, and that the agency interpretation claiming deference was promulgated in the
exercise of that authority.”); see also Poder in Action v. City of Phoenix, No. CV-20-01429, 2020 WL 5038582, at *7
(D. Ariz. Aug. 26, 2020) (declining to apply Chevron deference to the HHS interpretation). Federal courts might still
find the reasoning in the agency interpretations persuasive, however. See Uriostegui v. Alabama Crime Victims Comp.
Comm’n, No. 2:10-CV-1265-PWG, 2010 WL 11613802, at *14 (N.D. Ala. Nov. 16, 2010) (quoting the DOJ Guidance
with approval), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:10-CV-1265-LSC, 2011 WL 13285298 (N.D. Ala. Jan. 12,
2011); Poder in Action, 2020 WL 5038582 at *7 (“[T]he deference owed to HHS’s interpretation (if any) would reach
only to the extent that the agency's reasoning is persuasive.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
59 See Oakley v. DeVos, No. 20-cv-03215-YGR, 2020 WL 3268661, at *14 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2020) (relying on HHS
Guidance); Uriostegui, 2011 WL at *14 (relying on DOJ Guidance).
60 8 U.S.C. § 1641(a).
61 See Dep’t of Justice, Verification of Eligibility for Public Benefits, 63 Fed. Reg. 41,665 (Aug. 4, 1998).
62 See 7 C.F.R. § 400.679(d) (providing that nonqualified aliens are not eligible for federal crop insurance benefits due
to PRWORA); 42 C.F.R. § 436.406 (applying PRWORA rules to Medicaid).
63 See Mashiri v. Dep’t of Educ., 724 F.3d 1028, 1032 (9th Cir. 2013) (mentioning PRWORA’s eligibility rules without
determining their impact on federal financial aid programs); infra text at note 180 (discussing lack of case law on
PRWORA’s applicability to unemployment insurance programs).
64 8 U.S.C. § 1612(a) (framework of rules for the “specified federal programs” of SSI and SNAP), (b) (framework of
rules for the “designated federal programs” of TANF, SSBG, and Medicaid).
65 Id. § 1611(c)(1)(B).
66 See id. § 1612; HHS Guidance, supra note 36, at 41,658 (stating that Medicaid, SSBG, and TANF, among other
programs, are “federal public benefits” under PRWORA); id. at 41,660 (explaining that, without the citation to SSBG
in 8 U.S.C. § 1612, HHS would have harbored doubt about whether some benefits provided through the program
constituted “federal public benefits”).
67 E.g., Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-3 § 214(a), 123 Stat. 8, 56-
57 (2009) (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1396b(v)(4)(A)) (overriding PRWORA to allow states to grant Medicaid coverage to
Congressional Research Service
9

link to page 9 PRWORA’s Restrictions on Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Benefits: Legal Issues

apply to these programs.68 Questions may still arise over the correct outcome under the rules in
some liminal cases—particularly when the immigration status that an alien holds is unclear.69 But
there is typically no uncertainty about the foundational point that the PRWORA rules do, in fact,
apply to these major programs.70
Conversely, PRWORA also makes clear that its eligibility rules for federal public benefits do not
apply to some other federal programs that it cites by authorizing statute, such as “the school lunch
program under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act” and “the school breakfast
program under section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966.”71 In a similar vein, PRWORA
exempts other federal programs from its general eligibility rules and subjects them instead to
more forgiving eligibility criteria. For example, section 1611(b) specifies that aliens need not be
“qualified aliens” to be eligible for retirement, survivors, and disability benefits under Title II of
the Social Security Act; instead, aliens may be eligible for these benefits if they are “lawfully
present.”72 Medicare receives the same treatment under PRWORA,73 as do certain railroad
retirement and unemployment benefits.74 In each case, PRWORA’s impact on the eligibility rules
is clear.75
Category 2: Programs That Deliver Enumerated Benefits
Beyond the major federal programs described above that are cited by their authorizing statutes
and singled out for special treatment in the text of PRWORA, a second category of federal
programs deliver benefits enumerated in the “federal public benefit” definition. Examples include
Department of Labor programs that provide unemployment benefits,76 Department of Education

some nonqualified children and pregnant women); Noncitizen Benefit Clarification and Other Technical Amendments
Act, Pub. L. No. 105-306, § 2, 112 Stat. 2926, 2927 (1998) (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1611(b)(5)) (amending PRWORA to
add an exception allowing nonqualified aliens who were receiving SSI benefits before August 22, 1996, to remain
eligible for such benefits).
68 See, e.g., Lewis v. Thompson, 252 F.3d 567, 580-82 (2d Cir. 2001) (holding that PRWORA “unequivocal[ly]”
renders nonqualified aliens ineligible for Medicaid); City of Chicago v. Shalala, 189 F.3d 598, 601 (7th Cir. 1999) (“In
§ 402(b) of [PRWORA] [8 U.S.C. § 1612(b)], Congress authorized the states, subject to certain exceptions, to
determine the eligibility of qualified aliens for three other federal benefit programs: Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (‘TANF’), Social Services Block Grants (‘SSBG’), and Medicaid.”); HHS Guidance, supra note 36, at
41,658-660.
69 See Taylor v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 891, 896 (8th Cir. 2005) (considering whether an alien who had been admitted as an
adoptive child in 1984 but did not have further evidence of status was “lawfully present” for purposes of 8 U.S.C. §
1611(b)(2)); Joubert v. Barnhart, 396 F. Supp. 2d 1320, 1326 (S.D. Fla. 2005) (analyzing whether an alien was a
“Cuban and Haitian entrant” for purposes of an exception to the general bar on the eligibility of qualified aliens for
SSI).
70 See Lewis, 252 F.3d at 580-82; see generally Andrew Hammond, The Immigration-Welfare Nexus in A New Era?, 22
LEWIS & CLARK L. REV. 501, 515-16 (2018) (describing post-PRWORA eligibility rules for TANF, Medicaid, SNAP,
and SSI).
71 8 U.S.C. § 1615(a).
72 Id. § 1611(b)(2).
73 Id. § 1611(b)(3).
74 Id. § 1611(b)(4).
75 See Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 198 (5th Cir. 2015) (explaining that PRWORA permits lawfully present
aliens to be eligible for Medicare, social security retirement, and social security disability benefits),
76 See Wimberly v. Labor and Indus. Relat. Comm’n of Missouri, 479 U.S. 511, 514 (1987) (“The Federal
Unemployment Tax Act (Act), 26 U.S.C. § 3301 et seq., enacted originally as Title IX of the Social Security Act in
1935, 49 Stat. 639, envisions a cooperative federal-state program of benefits to unemployed workers.”); see generally
CRS Report RL33362, Unemployment Insurance: Programs and Benefits, by Julie M. Whittaker and Katelin P. Isaacs,
at 1-2.
Congressional Research Service
10

link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9 PRWORA’s Restrictions on Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Benefits: Legal Issues

programs that provide federal student aid,77 and Department of Housing and Urban Development
programs that provide housing benefits.78
PRWORA’s applicability to programs in this category is not as clear as its applicability to the
major federal programs in Category 1. To be sure, by delivering enumerated benefits, these
programs clearly satisfy one element of the “federal public benefit” definition.79 But that
definition has other elements, as described above. To constitute a “federal public benefit,” an
enumerated benefit must also be delivered by a federal agency or with federally “appropriated
funds.”80 Further, for benefits under prong (B) of the definition (e.g., unemployment and housing
benefits), the benefits must be provided “to an individual, household, or family eligibility unit.”81
Thus, where PRWORA does not otherwise make clear that it applies to a particular program—as
in the case of Medicaid, TANF, SSI, and SNAP—assessing whether the program provides
enumerated benefits that satisfy these additional elements requires interpretation.82 For example,
one court has expressed doubts about whether a form of federally funded student aid widely
available to university students during the COVID-19 pandemic satisfied the “individual,
household, or family eligibility unit” element of prong (B) of the “federal public benefit”
definition.83 Furthermore, separate questions often arise about whether alien eligibility for
programs in this category is governed by other statutes that are more specific to the programs,
rather than by PRWORA.84 With respect to federal housing programs, for instance, doubt has
persisted over the relationship between PRWORA and the slightly divergent eligibility criteria in
Section 214 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1980.85 These significant
interpretive issues about whether programs in this category are subject to the PRWORA eligibility
restrictions are explored in more depth below, in the discussion of PRWORA’s interplay with
other statutes and in the case studies section of this report.
Resolution of the ambiguity about whether federal programs in this category deliver “federal
public benefits” often depends upon whether the relevant federal agency promulgates regulations
or other guidance on the topic. Where an agency specifies by regulation or guidance that
PRWORA’s “qualified alien” restriction applies, the ambiguity often ends there.86 The HHS
Guidance examined above, for example, lists thirty-one HHS programs that the agency has

77 See 20 U.S.C. § 1070; see generally CRS Report R43351, The Higher Education Act (HEA): A Primer, by Alexandra
Hegji, at 9 (“Title IV of the HEA contains nine parts that authorize a broad array of programs and provisions to assist
students and their families in gaining access to and financing a postsecondary education.”).
78 See 42 U.S.C. § 1436a; see CRS Report R46462, Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Housing Programs, by Maggie
McCarty and Abigail F. Kolker, at 7.
79 See 8 U.S.C. § 1611(c)(1); DOJ Guidance, supra note 37, at 61,361.
80 See 8 U.S.C. § 1611(c)(1)(A); DOJ Guidance, supra note 37, at 61,361.
81 See 8 U.S.C. § 1611(c)(1)(B); DOJ Guidance, supra note 37, at 61,361.
82 See HHS Guidance, supra note 36, at 41,659 (commenting that the federal public benefit definition requires
interpretation because it does not specify the particular programs to which it applies).
83 See Oakley v. DeVos, No. 20-cv-03215-YGR, 2020 WL 3268661, at *14 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2020) (“HEERF relief
is targeted toward [universities] to provide aid to their students, not directed to individual eligibility units. These
characteristics suggest that HEERF does not meet the definition of ‘Federal public benefit’ in Section 1611(a).”)
84 See, e.g., Mashiri v. Dep’t of Educ., 724 F.3d 1028, 1033 (9th Cir. 2013) (not resolving whether divergent eligibility
criteria for federal student aid in Higher Education Act “precluded the application of” PRWORA).
85 Compare 8 U.S.C. §§ 1611, 1642 (qualified alien rule), with 42 U.S.C. § 1436a (eligibility criteria for certain federal
housing assistance programs); see CRS Report R46462, Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Housing Programs, by
Maggie McCarty and Abigail F. Kolker, at 7 (“The inconsistent statutory treatment of certain categories of noncitizens
between Section 214 and PRWORA has led some to call for statutory changes.”).
86 See, e.g., HHS Guidance, supra note 36, at 41,658.
Congressional Research Service
11

link to page 9 link to page 22 PRWORA’s Restrictions on Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Benefits: Legal Issues

determined deliver “federal public benefits” within the meaning of § 1611(c).87 In a more targeted
action, the Department of Agriculture issued a bulletin taking the position that only “qualified
aliens” are eligible for the federal crop insurance program.88 The agency reasoned that the
benefits are delivered in the form of “contracts that are supported by appropriated funds” and
therefore fell within prong (A) of the federal public benefit definition.89 The agency later revised
its program regulations to conform to this interpretation.90 Such agency interpretations, supported
by legal reasoning, have brought a level of clarity to how PRWORA affects these specific
programs.91 Even if an agency’s interpretation of how PRWORA applies to a federal program is
challenged in court, which appears uncommon, the challenge may produce case law that itself
clarifies the applicable eligibility rules.92
On the other hand, when agency guidance imposes immigration-related eligibility rules that
appear to derive from PRWORA, but does not clearly explain the legal reasoning behind the
rules, unresolved questions may linger about how PRWORA applies and what limitations it
imposes.93 Similarly, where an agency remains silent about PRWORA’s impact on a federal
program’s eligibility rules for aliens, significant doubt may persist about whether it applies.94
Such doubt becomes particularly relevant to Congress when it seeks to create new benefits of a
similar nature to be administered by the same agency; unless the new legislation addresses alien
eligibility expressly, at the time of enactment Congress will not know with certainty which
categories of aliens will be eligible for the new benefits.95

87 HHS Guidance, supra note 36, at 41,658.
88 Dep’t of Agric., Bulletin No: MGR-05-008, Eligibility for Federal Crop Insurance Benefits for Non-Citizens without
a Social Security Number, at 2 (May 26, 2005), https://www.ag-risk.org/FCICDOCU/MGRBUL/2005/m05008.pdf.
89 Id.
90 7 C.F.R. § 400.679(d); see Dep’t of Agric., General Administrative Regulations; Mutual Consent Cancellation; Food
Security Act of 1985, Implementation; Denial of Benefits; and Ineligibility for Programs Under the Federal Crop
Insurance Act, 79 Fed. Reg. 2075, 2080 (Jan. 13, 2014) (issuance of final rule).
91 See, e.g., 45 C.F.R. § 1370.5(d) (“All [Family Violence Prevention and Services Act]-funded services must be
provided without requiring documentation of immigration status because HHS has determined that FVPSA-funded
services do not fall within the definition of federal public benefit that would require verification of immigration
status.”); Leslye Orloff, Lifesaving Welfare Safety Net Access for Battered Immigrant Women and Children:
Accomplishments and Next Steps, 7 WM. & MARY J. WOMEN & L. 597, 623 n.224 (2001) (explaining that “[a]ny HHS-
funded program not on the list is not a federal public benefit”).
92 See Uriostegui v. Alabama Crime Victims Comp. Comm’n, No. 2:10-CV-1265-PWG, 2010 WL 11613802, at *12
(N.D. Ala. Nov. 16, 2010) (rejecting DOJ interpretation of PRWORA’s applicability to a federally funded victim’s
compensation program), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:10-CV-1265-LSC, 2011 WL 13285298 (N.D. Ala.
Jan. 12, 2011); cf. Washington v. DeVos, -- F. Supp. 3d -- , 2020 WL 4275041, at *6 (E.D. Wash. July 24, 2020)
(“Congress’s inconsistent language in Section 18004 of the CARES Act is too ambiguous to demonstrate a ‘clear and
manifest’ intent to override the longstanding and generally applicable PRWORA bar.”); Oakley v. DeVos, -- F. Supp.
3d --, 2020 WL 3268661, at *15-16 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2020) (in contrast to Washington, holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1611
likely does not restrict eligibility for the emergency financial aid grants).
93 E.g., DEP’T OF EDUC., FEDERAL STUDENT AID HANDBOOK 2019-20, at 1-41 (stating that aliens granted withholding of
removal are ineligible for federal student aid, without explaining apparent tension with the classification of such aliens
as “qualified aliens” under 8 U.S.C. § 1641(b)(5)) [hereinafter Federal Student Aid Handbook],
https://ifap.ed.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/2019-08/1920FSAHbkVol1Master.pdf; SMALL BUS. ADMIN.,
DISASTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, STANDARD OPERATING PROC. 50 30 9, at 19 (May 31, 2018) (stating that alien-owned
business entities ineligible for economic injury disaster loans (EIDL) if a nonqualified alien owns twenty percent or
more of the entity, without explaining whether this rule is based in PRWORA or, if so, why the agency determined that
PRWORA applies to business entities).
94 See infra “Federally Funded Unemployment Insurance Benefits.”
95 Compare Oakley, 2020 WL 3268661, at *15-16 (holding that PRWORA likely does not restrict emergency financial
aid under the CARES Act), with Washington, 2020 WL 4275041, at *6 (holding that PRWORA does restrict eligibility
Congressional Research Service
12

link to page 30 PRWORA’s Restrictions on Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Benefits: Legal Issues

Category 3: Programs That Deliver Non-enumerated Benefits That Are
Arguably “Similar” to Enumerated Benefits
A third category of federal programs do not receive specialized treatment under PRWORA, do
not deliver benefits of a type enumerated in the “federal public benefit” definition (such as
“welfare” or “unemployment benefits”), but do deliver benefits of a type that are arguably
“similar” to the enumerated benefit types.96 Examples from federal case law include federally
funded victim’s compensation programs97 and life insurance benefits for the survivors of federal
employees.98 Whether the benefits delivered by such programs constitute “federal public benefits”
under PRWORA is often unclear.
Sometimes, language from other parts of PRWORA helps to resolve such questions. For example,
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administers some federal programs that
deliver cash assistance for people affected by disasters.99 Examples include the Individuals and
Households Program, through which FEMA may provide grants directly to individuals and
households after a disaster,100 and the Disaster Unemployment Assistance program.101 PRWORA
does not cite either program by their authorizing statutes or create specialized eligibility rules for
them. Nor does PRWORA’s definition of “federal public benefits” include disaster relief benefits
in its list of enumerated benefit types.102 Yet there has not been confusion on the point that
PRWORA does, in fact, restrict eligibility for these cash assistance programs. This is because 8
U.S.C. § 1611(b) provides that the baseline eligibility rule restricting federal public benefits to
“qualified aliens” does not apply to “[s]hort-term, non-cash, in-kind emergency disaster relief.”103
By carving out “non-cash” disaster assistance from the baseline eligibility restriction for federal
public benefits, PRWORA implies that the restriction does apply to other forms of disaster relief
(including cash assistance).104 FEMA has interpreted PRWORA this way—to bar nonqualified
aliens from eligibility for disaster relief paid in cash—and the interpretation does not appear to
have generated disagreement.105

for the financial aid); see infra “Emergency Financial Aid Under the CARES Act.”
96 See 8 U.S.C. § 1611(c).
97 Uriostegui v. Alabama Crime Victims Comp. Comm’n, No. 2:10-CV-1265-PWG, 2010 WL 11613802, at *14 (N.D.
Ala. Nov. 16, 2010), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:10-CV-1265-LSC, 2011 WL 13285298 (N.D. Ala.
Jan. 12, 2011).
98 Herrera v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., No. 11-CV-1901, 2011 WL 6415058, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2011).
99 See generally CRS Report R46014, FEMA Individual Assistance Programs: An Overview, by Elizabeth M. Webster.
100 See Barbosa v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 916 F.3d 1068, 1069 (D.C. Cir. 2019); CRS Report R44619, FEMA
Disaster Housing: The Individuals and Households Program—Implementation and Potential Issues for Congress, by
Shawn Reese.
101 See Maleche v. Solis, 692 F. Supp. 2d 679, 683 (S.D. Tex. 2010).
102 8 U.S.C. § 1611(c).
103 Id. § 1611(b)(1)(B).
104 See id.
105 See Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, FACT SHEET: Citizenship Status and Eligibility for Disaster Assistance FAQ
(Nov. 15, 2019) (“[Y]ou must be a U.S. citizen, non-citizen national or Qualified Alien to be eligible for Disaster
Unemployment Assistance.”), https://www.fema.gov/news-release/20200220/fact-sheet-citizenship-status-and-
eligibility-disaster-assistance-faq; cf. Coal. of Fla. Farmworker Orgs., Inc. v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, No. 06-
80143-CIV, 2007 WL 9701970, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 12, 2007) (explaining without deciding on the merits the question
whether PRWORA renders nonqualified aliens ineligible for temporary housing assistance—as opposed to emergency
disaster shelter—under section 408 of the Stafford Act). Separately, the Small Business Administration (SBA) appears
to interpret PRWORA to restrict the eligibility even of business entities for federally funded disaster loans. The
agency’s standard operating procedure for disaster loans states that “[i]f any member, partner, or shareholder, owning
Congressional Research Service
13

PRWORA’s Restrictions on Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Benefits: Legal Issues

Where other provisions of PRWORA do not clarify the reach of the catchall language, agencies
and courts must determine whether benefits from a program in this category are “similar” to the
enumerated benefit types in 8 U.S.C. § 1611(c). Many different considerations might inform that
determination, and, as a result, federal case law in this area is varied. In one case, a federal district
court held that a victim’s compensation program in Alabama that delivers cash payments to some
victims of violent crime is subject to the PRWORA eligibility restrictions, meaning that
nonqualified aliens are not eligible for the program.106 The program is administered by a state
agency, but sixty percent of the cash payments are funded by federal grants authorized by the
Victims of Crime Act of 1980.107 The court reasoned that cash payments for victim compensation
“cushion the economic blow that often results when a claimant becomes a ‘victim’ of a particular
unfortunate occurrence,” similar to enumerated benefit types in the “federal public benefit”
definition (such as unemployment and disability benefits).108
In a different case, a federal district court held that life insurance proceeds from a postal
employee’s Federal Employee Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) policy were not a “federal public
benefit,” such that PRWORA did not bar an employee’s nonqualified alien beneficiary from
receiving such proceeds.109 The court acknowledged that a FEGLI policy might be considered a
“contract” within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1611(c)(1).110 However, the court concluded that the
proceeds were not a federal public benefit because the legislative history of PRWORA indicated
that Congress intended it to restrict only benefits available to the general public, not aspects of
individual employee compensation packages.111 Further, the court reasoned that even if the
FEGLI policy was a federal public benefit, it was a benefit provided to the federal employee
(who, in this case, was a citizen not barred from eligibility by PRWORA) and not to the
nonqualified alien beneficiary.112
These two district court decisions do not directly conflict with each other, given that one concerns
victim’s compensation and the other concerns life insurance proceeds. Yet the courts took
different approaches to interpreting the reach of the federal public benefits definition. In the
victim’s compensation case, the court seemed to read the “similar” clause as establishing a
presumption that public benefits fall within PRWORA’s sweep.113 The list of benefits enumerated

20 percent or more of the applicant business is in the USA they must be a qualified alien.” Small Business Admin,
Disaster Assistance Program, SOP 50 30 9 (May 31, 2018), https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/2018-
06/SOP%2050%2030%209-FINAL.PDF. The extent to which PRWORA restricts benefits received by business entities
would appear to be an open question. See 8 U.S.C. § 1611(a) (“[A]n alien who is not a qualified alien (as defined in
section 1641 of this title) is not eligible for any Federal public benefit . . . .”) (emphasis added).
106 Uriostegui v. Alabama Crime Victims Comp. Comm’n, No. 2:10-CV-1265-PWG, 2010 WL 11613802, at *15 (N.D.
Ala. Nov. 16, 2010), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:10-CV-1265-LSC, 2011 WL 13285298 (N.D. Ala.
Jan. 12, 2011).
107 Id. at *2.
108 Id. at *15. The New Jersey Supreme Court reached a different conclusion on the related issue of whether victim’s
compensation payments constituted a “state or local public benefit” under 8 U.S.C. § 1621(c). Caballero v. Martinez,
897 A.2d 1026, 1031 n.1 (N.J. 2006). Although the parties in the litigation did not dispute the issue, the court reasoned
in a footnote that victim’s compensation payments “are not similar to the need-based benefits enumerated in §
1621(c)(1)(B), such as retirement and welfare assistance, which the statute cites as examples of benefits covered by
PRWORA.” Id.
109 Herrera v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., No. 11-CV-1901, 2011 WL 6415058, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2011).
110 Id. at *8.
111 Id. at *9.
112 Id. at *8.
113 Uriostegui, 2010 WL 11613802 at *15.
Congressional Research Service
14

PRWORA’s Restrictions on Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Benefits: Legal Issues

in 8 U.S.C. § 1611(c)(2) are “quite broad in their variety,” the court reasoned, meaning that non-
enumerated benefit types such as victim’s compensation cannot readily be distinguished from
them.114 In contrast, the court in the FEGLI case read PRWORA’s structure and legislative
history to give the federal public benefits definition a more limited scope.115 Congress intended
the statute’s eligibility restrictions to cover only publicly available “welfare” programs such as
SSI and food stamps, the court reasoned, not more narrowly targeted programs such as FEGLI.116
Under that line of reasoning, victim’s compensation might not be considered to fit within the
“similar” clause.117 Because the “similar” clause itself gives limited direction as to the range of
benefits it covers, future courts may continue to take varied approaches in interpreting it.
State and federal courts have grappled with the related issue of whether non-enumerated benefits
fall within the definition of “state or local public benefit” under 8 U.S.C. § 1621(c).118 The “state
or local public benefit” definition tracks the “federal public benefit” definition and has the same
catchall language for “similar” benefits.119 These decisions have tended to read the catchall
language narrowly, restricting its coverage of non-enumerated state and local benefits.120 Future
CRS products may analyze these cases in more depth. For purposes of this report about
PRWORA’s restrictions on federal public benefits, these state cases provide further examples of
the interpretive challenge posed by PRWORA’s catchall language for “similar” benefit types.

114 Id.
115 Herrera, 2011 WL 6415058 at *9.
116 Id.
117 See id.
118 See Equal Access Educ. v. Merten, 305 F. Supp. 2d 585, 605 n.18 (E.D. Va. 2004) (“It is clear . . . that PRWORA
does not consider mere admission or attendance at a public post-secondary institution to be a public benefit.”); City
Plan Dev., Inc. v. Office of Labor Comm’r, 117 P.3d 182, 190 (Nev. 2005) (holding that payment of prevailing wage
under a public works contract does not constitute a state or local public benefit); Matter of MH2015-002490, 422 P.3d
1043, 1047 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018) (holding that court-ordered psychiatric treatment is not a state or local public benefit
under § 1621(c)); Rajeh v. Steel City Corp., 813 N.E.2d 697, 706-07 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004) (holding that workers’
compensation is not a state or local public benefit); Cnty. of Alameda v. Agustin, No. HF05217109, 2007 WL
2759474, at *3 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 24, 2007) (unpublished) (holding that child support collection services are not a
state or local public benefit).
119 See 8 U.S.C. § 1621(c).
120 See Matter of MH2015-002490, 422 P.3d at 1046-47 (interpreting PRWORA to apply only to benefits “for which an
individual voluntarily applies,” and rejecting interpretations that would read the statute more broadly on the ground that
they would produce “absurd results”); Rajeh, 813 N.E. at 707 (emphasizing that Congress “chose not to include
workers’ compensation” on the list of enumerated benefits, and reasoning that “[t]o refuse to allow illegal aliens injured
on the job to recover from the Workers’ Compensation Fund would be to encourage the hiring of illegal aliens and
downgrade workplace safety”).
Congressional Research Service
15

link to page 22 PRWORA’s Restrictions on Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Benefits: Legal Issues

Framework for Determining Whether PRWORA Applies to a Particular Federal
Benefit Program
1. Does PRWORA cite the program by authorizing statute and create specialized eligibility rules for it?

If yes, PRWORA applies. (E.g., Medicaid, SNAP, SSI, TANF.) Congress may carve out exceptions in
later legislation.
2. If PRWORA does not cite the program, are the benefits that the program provides enumerated in the federal
public benefits definition at § 1611(c)(1) and not exempted from its reach?

If yes, agency guidance may clarify whether PRWORA restrictions apply. Absent agency guidance,
unresolved legal questions may persist, and the program might continue to fol ow differing eligibility
rules in its authorizing statute.
3. If neither (1) nor (2), PRWORA applies only if the program provides benefits “similar” to the enumerated
benefit types in § 1611(c)(1)(B) (e.g., welfare, unemployment).

Agency guidance or case law may analyze the issue. Otherwise, the answer wil be subject to
interpretation, and opinions may differ.
PRWORA’s Interplay with Other Statutes
Even if a federal program delivers benefits that meet the definition of “federal public benefit,”
questions often arise about whether a more specific statute governing the program displaces
PRWORA’s “qualified alien” rule. These interpretive issues come in two main varieties:
retrospective issues (concerning divergent eligibility rules in statutes that predate PRWORA) and
prospective issues (concerning later statutes).
Retrospective Application of PRWORA
Before PRWORA, an array of federal statutes established alien eligibility rules for particular
types of federal benefits. There was no overarching eligibility rule—instead, statutes specific to
particular programs imposed the eligibility restrictions for aliens, if any.121 The Medicaid statute,
for example, generally denied eligibility to non-PRUCOL aliens (i.e., aliens not “permanently
residing under color of law”).122 The Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) generally limited
eligibility for unemployment insurance to aliens with work authorization.123
PRWORA did not expressly repeal the eligibility criteria in these preexisting program statutes.124
However, PRWORA does provide that its baseline “qualified alien” requirement applies
“[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law.”125 Similarly, PRWORA states that the specialized
eligibility rules for major federal programs (Medicaid, TANF, SSI, and SNAP) apply
“notwithstanding any other provision of law.”126 Typically, federal courts interpret

121 See H.R. REP. NO. 104–725, at 379 (1996) (“Current law limits alien eligibility for most major Federal assistance
programs, including restrictions on, among other programs, Supplemental Security Income, Aid to Families with
Dependent Children, housing assistance, and Food Stamps programs. Current law is silent on alienage under, among
other programs, school lunch and nutrition, the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children
(WIC), Head Start, migrant health centers, and the earned income credit.”)
122 42 U.S.C.A. § 1396b(v)(3); see Lewis v. Thompson, 252 F.3d 567, 574 (2d Cir. 2001) (describing legislative
history).
123 26 U.S.C. § 3304(a)(14)(A); see infra “Federally Funded Unemployment Insurance Benefits.”
124 See 8 U.S.C. § 1611(c); see, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 1396b(v)(3).
125 8 U.S.C. § 1611(c).
126 Id. § 1612(a)(1), (b)(1); see also id. § 1613(a) (“notwithstanding” clause for restrictions on federal means-tested
public benefits).
Congressional Research Service
16

link to page 9 link to page 12 link to page 22 link to page 28 PRWORA’s Restrictions on Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Benefits: Legal Issues

“notwithstanding” clauses of this variety to override inconsistent provisions in other statutes.127
This general rule of interpretation may have limits, however. In particular, case law in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit instructs that “the phrase ‘notwithstanding any other law’
should not always be read literally.”128 Under that case law, courts may read a “notwithstanding
clause” to have more limited effect based on “its context and its history.”129
For the major federal programs described above in Category 1—Medicaid, SSI, TANF, and
SNAP—it is well settled that the “notwithstanding” clauses in PRWORA override divergent
eligibility criteria in the more specific statutes that govern these programs. Federal agencies have
come to this conclusion,130 and courts have agreed.131 As explained previously, because PRWORA
cites these programs by their authorizing statutes and develops specialized eligibility rules
specifically for them, PRWORA makes clear that its eligibility rules apply to them.132 This clarity
holds even in the face of divergent rules in preexisting statutes.133
However, the clarity does not hold for other federal programs that appear to deliver “federal
public benefits” but are not the subject of specialized rules under PRWORA. When an earlier and
more specific statute establishes differing eligibility criteria for such programs, there can be
confusion about whether PRWORA overrides those criteria.134 Prime examples include federal
unemployment insurance,135 federal student aid,136 and federal housing programs.137 Pre-
PRWORA statutes for each of these benefit types establish eligibility rules for aliens that differ
from PRWORA to varying degrees.138 On the one hand, the “notwithstanding” clause in section
1611 could be interpreted to override these earlier rules.139 On the other hand, a different canon of

127 See Cisneros v. Alpine Ridge Group, 508 U.S. 10, 17-18 (1993) (“[T]he use of such a ‘notwithstanding’ clause
clearly signals the drafter’s intention that the provisions of the ‘notwithstanding’ section override conflicting provisions
of any other section.”); Field v. Napolitano, 663 F.3d 505, 511 (1st Cir. 2011).
128 Ordlock v. C.I.R., 533 F.3d 1136, 1143 (9th Cir. 2008); Or. Nat’l Res. Council v. Thomas, 92 F.3d 792, 796 (9th
Cir. 1996).
129 Ordlock, 533 F.3d at 1144 (“Because it is unlikely that Congress intended the ‘notwithstanding any other rule law of
law’ phrase to be a broad, catch-all preemption clause, we examine its context and its history of the phrase to derive its
meaning.”).
130 See HHS Guidance, supra note 36, at 41,658 (stating that Medicaid, SSBG, and TANF, among other programs, are
“federal public benefits” under PRWORA).
131 Lewis v. Thompson, 252 F.3d 567, 580-82 (2d Cir. 2001) (holding that PRWORA “unequivocal[ly]” renders
nonqualified aliens ineligible for Medicaid); City of Chicago v. Shalala, 189 F.3d 598, 601 (7th Cir. 1999) (“In §
402(b) of [PRWORA] [8 U.S.C. § 1612(b)], Congress authorized the states, subject to certain exceptions, to determine
the eligibility of qualified aliens for three other federal benefit programs: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(‘TANF’), Social Services Block Grants (‘SSBG’), and Medicaid.”).
132 See supra “Category 1: Programs for Which PRWORA Makes Special Provision.”
133 See Lewis, 252 F.3d at 581 (explaining the preexisting eligibility criteria for aliens in the Medicaid statute are
“clearly trumped” by PRWORA).
134 Mashiri v. Dep’t of Educ., 724 F.3d 1028, 1033 (9th Cir. 2013) (not resolving whether divergent eligibility criteria
in Higher Education Act “precluded the application of” PRWORA).
135 See infra “Federally Funded Unemployment Insurance Benefits.”
136 See Mashiri, 724 F.3d at 1033; infra “Federal Student Aid.”
137 See CRS Report R46462, Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Housing Programs, by Maggie McCarty and Abigail F.
Kolker, at 7 (“The inconsistent statutory treatment of certain categories of noncitizens between Section 214 and
PRWORA has led some to call for statutory changes.”).
138 20 U.S.C. § 1091(a)(5)(eligibility criteria for Higher Education Act student aid); 26 U.S.C. § 3304(a)(14)(A)
(eligibility criteria for unemployment insurance); 42 U.S.C. § 1436a (eligibility criteria for certain federal housing
assistance programs).
139 See Cisneros v. Alpine Ridge Group, 508 U.S. 10, 17-18 (1993).
Congressional Research Service
17

link to page 22 PRWORA’s Restrictions on Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Benefits: Legal Issues

statutory interpretation—the general/specific canon—provides that a more specific statute
governs over a conflicting general statute.140 Because PRWORA sweeps more broadly than the
program-specific statutes that prescribe divergent eligibility criteria, the argument can be made
that the program-specific statute prevails under the general/specific canon.141 Two specific
examples of this problem of statutory interpretation—concerning federal unemployment
insurance and federal student aid—are analyzed below in the case studies section.142
Prospective Application of PRWORA
A different issue of statutory interpretation arises when Congress creates new benefits that appear
to constitute “federal public benefits” under the PRWORA definition. If the new law that creates
the benefits does not clarify whether they are subject to PRWORA’s restrictions on alien
eligibility, thorny questions may emerge about whether Congress intended PRWORA to apply.
Congress may carve out exceptions to an existing statutory rule expressly or, more rarely, by
implication.143 There is no question that PRWORA does not apply in instances where Congress
overrides it expressly in a later statute.144 Thus, where Congress legislated in 2009 to allow states
to provide Medicaid coverage to “lawfully residing” pregnant women and children
“notwithstanding” PRWORA, it made clear that PRWORA does not limit eligibility for this
federally funded health benefit.145
Courts disfavor reading statutes to repeal earlier laws by implication, but Congress may
nonetheless override PRWORA implicitly by creating eligibility criteria in a later statute that
conflict irreconcilably with the PRWORA criteria.146 It is rather clear, for instance, that PRWORA
does not restrict alien eligibility for the health benefits authorized in the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010.147 The ACA does not override PRWORA expressly but does
extend eligibility to “lawfully present” aliens, a more expansive category than “qualified aliens”
under PRWORA.148

140 See RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 566 U.S. 639, 645 (2012) (“The general/specific canon is
perhaps most frequently applied to statutes in which a general permission or prohibition is contradicted by a specific
prohibition or permission. To eliminate the contradiction, the specific provision is construed as an exception to the
general one.”); CRS Report R45153, Statutory Interpretation: Theories, Tools, and Trends, by Valerie C. Brannon, at
55 (“Where two laws conflict, the specific governs the general (generalia specialibus non derogant). That is, a
precisely drawn, detailed statute pre-empts more general remedies, and conversely, a statute dealing with a narrow,
precise, and specific subject is not submerged by a later enacted statute covering a more generalized spectrum.”)
(citations and quotation marks omitted).
141 See RadLAX Gateway Hotel, 566 U.S. at 645; see also Noerand v. Devos, -- F. Supp. 3d --, 2020 WL 4274559, at *7
(D. Mass. July 24, 2020) (relying on the general/specific canon to conclude that language in a later-enacted benefits
statute overrides the PRWORA eligibility restrictions for aliens).
142 See infra “Case Studies.”
143 See United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439, 676 (1988) (“[I]t can be strongly presumed that Congress will
specifically address language on the statute books that it wishes to change.”); Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Co., 426
U.S. 148, 153-54 (1976).
144 See Hagen v. Utah, 501 U.S. 399, 416 (1994) (discussing Congress’s power to expressly repeal any earlier statutes).
145 Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-3 § 214(a), 123 Stat. 8, 56-57
(codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1396b(v)(4)(A)).
146 See Garfield v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 811 F.3d 86, 89 (2d Cir. 2016) (“‘In the absence of some affirmative
showing of an intention to repeal, the only permissible justification for a repeal by implication is when the earlier and
later statutes are irreconcilable.’”) (quoting Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550 (1974)).
147 See Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010).
148 Compare id. at 142, 184 (codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 18001, 18032), with 8 U.S.C. § 1611 (restricting access to federal
Congressional Research Service
18

link to page 30 link to page 30 link to page 30 PRWORA’s Restrictions on Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Benefits: Legal Issues

Where a later benefit statute is silent about PRWORA and does not impose immigration-related
eligibility criteria that conflict with PRWORA, the argument that it overrides PRWORA
implicitly might be less persuasive but could still find support.149 In recent litigation over benefits
created in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, plaintiffs have had mixed success in arguing that
language in a new benefit statute may create an “irreconcilable conflict” with PRWORA even if
the new statute is silent about alien eligibility for the benefits in question.150 These issues are
analyzed in more depth in the case studies below.151 The key point, at least under current case law,
is that PRWORA’s applicability to newly enacted federal public benefits often will not be clear
unless the new statute addresses PRWORA expressly or establishes express rules for alien
eligibility.152
Case Studies
This section explores two illustrative examples of types of federal benefits that have generated
unresolved questions and doubt about PRWORA’s applicability: federally funded unemployment
insurance benefits, and federal student aid programs.
Federally Funded Unemployment Insurance Benefits
For the federal-state unemployment insurance (UI) system overseen by the U.S. Department of
Labor (DOL),153 confusion about the applicability of PRWORA exists in law more than in
practice. DOL and state labor agencies continue to apply eligibility rules for aliens that predate

public benefits, including health benefits, to “qualified aliens”); see 45 C.F.R. §§ 152.2, 155.20 (defining “lawfully
present” for ACA purposes to include several categories of nonqualified aliens, including nonimmigrants, TPS
recipients, and deferred action recipients other than DACA recipients); Geoffrey Heeren, The Status of Nonstatus, 64
AM. U. L. REV. 1115, 1181 n. 276 (2015) (“The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has not included the
Affordable Care Act (ACA) in the definition of either ‘federal public benefit’ or ‘federal means-tested public benefit’
in the only notices that it has published on the issue . . . . As a result, the ACA is not subject to the restrictions on alien
access to benefits contained in the PRWORA.”).
149 See Garfield, 811 F.3d at 89 (discussing limited grounds for finding implicit repeal); cf. Ill. Nat’l Guard v. FLRA,
854 F.2d 1396, 1404-05 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (explaining that the presumption again repeals by implication has most force
“when it is urged that a specific statute has been repealed by a later but more general one”).
150 Compare Oakley v. Devos, -- F. Supp. 3d --, 2020 WL 3268661, at *15-16 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2020) (holding that
PRWORA likely does not restrict emergency financial aid under the CARES Act), and Noerand v. Devos, -- F. Supp.
3d -- , 2020 WL 4274559, at *7 (D. Mass. July 24, 2020) (similar), with Washington v. Devos, -- F. Supp. 3d -- , 2020
WL 4275041, at *6 (E.D. Wash July 24, 2020) (holding that PRWORA does restrict eligibility for the financial aid),
and Poder in Action v. City of Phoenix, No. CV-20-01429, 2020 WL 5038582, at *5 (D. Ariz. Aug. 26, 2020)
(“Section 5001 [of the CARES Act] cannot be said to evince a ‘clear and manifest’ intention to override PRWORA. Its
silence as to who may receive [Coronavirus Relief Fund] funds, although perhaps creating some ambiguity, can easily
be viewed as acquiescence to PRWORA’s longstanding limitations.”); see infra “Emergency Financial Aid Under the
CARES Act.”
151 See infra “Emergency Financial Aid Under the CARES Act.”
152 See Washington, 2020 WL 4275041 at *6 (reasoning that “statutory language discrepancies” between PRWORA
and a new benefits statute “are more likely attributable to inartful drafting under the constraints of a global pandemic
rather than any clearly expressed intent to override a longstanding provision of federal law with an overarching
‘notwithstanding’ clause”).
153 See Wimberly v. Labor and Indus. Relat. Comm’n of Missouri, 479 U.S. 511, 514 (1987) (“The Federal
Unemployment Tax Act (Act), 26 U.S.C. § 3301 et seq., enacted originally as Title IX of the Social Security Act in
1935, 49 Stat. 639, envisions a cooperative federal-state program of benefits to unemployed workers.”); see generally
CRS Report RL33362, Unemployment Insurance: Programs and Benefits, by Julie M. Whittaker and Katelin P. Isaacs,
at 1-2 [hereinafter RL33362].
Congressional Research Service
19

link to page 22 PRWORA’s Restrictions on Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Benefits: Legal Issues

PRWORA, even—judging by the limited available information—for UI benefits paid in whole or
in part with federal funds. Little published analysis explains how this practice comports with
PRWORA.
The UI system is governed by the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA).154 DOL has statutory
responsibility for ensuring that state UI systems meet the “minimum federal standards” set forth
in FUTA.155 The states administer the UI programs and deliver benefits to individuals, but the
federal government pays the states’ administrative expenses.156 State payroll taxes are the
exclusive source of funding for regular UI benefits.157 Federal payroll taxes partially or fully fund
other kinds of UI benefits—such as “extended benefits”—that become available primarily during
times of high unemployment.158
Since 1977, FUTA has established the following immigration-related eligibility restrictions for UI
benefits:
[C]ompensation shall not be payable on the basis of services performed by an alien unless
such alien is an individual who was lawfully admitted for permanent residence at the time
such services were performed, was lawfully present for purposes of performing such
services, or was permanently residing in the United States under color of law at the time
such services were performed (including an alien who was lawfully present in the United
States as a result of the application of the provisions of section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act) . . . .159
Under these criteria, alien eligibility for UI benefits turns mainly on employment authorization.160
If an alien had employment authorization at the time she performed past work, then she was
“lawfully present for purposes of performing” such past work and is not barred from UI eligibility
under this FUTA provision.161 (Under other aspects of unemployment law, the alien must also
have work authorization at the time she applies for and receives UI benefits.162) Many categories

154 Wimberly, 479 U.S. at 514.
155 Id.
156 Id. at 515; see RL33362, supra note 153, at 2.
157 See CRS Report RS22077, Unemployment Compensation (UC) and the Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF): Funding
UC Benefits, by Julie M. Whittaker, at 1.
158 Id.; Paschal v. Jackson, 936 F.2d 940, 941 (7th Cir. 1991) (“[T]he extended benefits (‘EB’) program . . . pays
benefits during periods of sufficiently high unemployment to claimants who have exhausted their regular benefits.”).
159 26 U.S.C. § 3304(a)(14)(A); see Pub. L. No. 95-19, 91 Stat. 39 (1977) (adopting current language). Congress first
added immigration-related eligibility criteria to FUTA one year earlier, in 1976, but the original criteria did not create
eligibility for aliens who were “lawfully present for purposes of performing such services.” See Pub. L. 94-566, 90 Stat.
2667 (1976).
160 Sudomir v. McMahon, 767 F.2d 1456, 1464 (9th Cir. 1985) (“The legislative history indicates that Congress
intended to extend benefits to nonresident aliens who are lawfully present to work in the United States for temporary
periods while excluding illegal aliens from coverage.”); see also Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 166 (5th Cir.
2015) (explaining that deferred action programs generally trigger UI eligibility).
161 Sudomir, 767 F.2d at 1464. FUTA establishes “minimum standards” for state UI systems and, as such, may not
prohibit states from creating stricter immigration-related eligibility criteria for UI benefits. See Wimberly v. Labor and
Indus. Relat. Comm’n of Missouri, 479 U.S. 511, 514 (1987). State authority to create stricter criteria may have other
limitations, however, including from constitutional law principles and from PRWORA itself. See Arizona Dream Act
Coal. v. Brewer, 855 F.3d 957, 972 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[S]tates may not directly regulate immigration, and the power to
classify aliens for immigration purposes is committed to the political branches of the Federal Government.”) (citations
and quotation marks omitted); 8 U.S.C. § 1622(b) (cabining state authority to limit eligibility of qualified aliens for
state public benefits).
162 See, e.g., Claim of Graif, 250 A.D.2d 1012, 1013 (N.Y. Ct. App. 3d Dep’t 1998) (“Claimant . . . was not, at the time
of her application [for unemployment benefits], legally authorized to work in the United States and, therefore, could not
Congressional Research Service
20

link to page 23 link to page 9 link to page 19 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 22 PRWORA’s Restrictions on Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Benefits: Legal Issues

of aliens who are not “qualified aliens” under PRWORA are eligible for employment
authorization.163 Such categories include DACA recipients, TPS holders, and aliens with
nonimmigrant work visas.164 Thus, the FUTA eligibility criteria are broader than PRWORA.
For UI benefits funded in part or in full by the federal government, does PRWORA override the
FUTA criteria, such that only “qualified aliens” are eligible for the benefits? No federal case law
or agency interpretation addresses this question authoritatively. In 1998, DOL issued guidance to
state agencies expressing the view that PRWORA restricts federally funded UI benefits.165 Such
benefits are “federal public benefits” and are available only to “U.S. nationals and qualified
aliens” under 8 U.S.C. § 1611(c), according to the guidance.166 However, more recent DOL
guidance about alien eligibility for UI benefits mentions only FUTA, not PRWORA.167
Whether PRWORA restricts eligibility for federally funded UI benefits turns on two primary
issues: first, whether such benefits are “federal public benefits” under the PRWORA definition;168
and second, whether the FUTA eligibility criteria for aliens applies instead of PRWORA.169
With respect to the first issue, federally funded UI benefits plainly satisfy two elements of prong
(B) of the “federal public benefit” definition. The benefits are enumerated in the definition—they
are “unemployment benefits”—and are also delivered to “individuals.”170 Yet prong (B) has a
third element: it encompasses only benefits provided “by an agency of the United States or by
appropriated funds of the United States.”171 State agencies, not DOL, provide federally funded UI
benefits directly to individuals, so the benefits probably are not “provided by an agency of the
United States.”172 As for the funding stream, the federal share of the special UI benefits available
during periods of high unemployment, such as “extended benefits,” often comes from federal
employer taxes deposited into a dedicated trust fund in the federal treasury.173 Questions could

be considered legally ‘available for work’ as required for a claim for unemployment insurance benefits.”); see also
Dep’t of Labor, Comparison of State Unemployment Insurance Laws, at 5-29 (2019) (“The Middle Class Tax Relief
and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-96) added an explicit statutory requirement to Federal law that
individuals must be able to work, available for work, and actively seeking work to be eligible for regular
unemployment compensation.”), https://oui.doleta.gov/unemploy/pdf/uilawcompar/2019/complete.pdf [hereinafter
DOL Comparison of State Unemployment Laws].
163 Compare 8 U.S.C. § 1641(b), (c) (listing categories of “qualified aliens”), with 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12 (Classes of aliens
authorized to accept employment).
164 See 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(a)(12), (b)(9)-(16), (c)(14).
165 Dep’t of Labor, Unemployment Ins. Program Letter No. 47-98 (Sept. 22, 1998),
https://oui.doleta.gov/dmstree/uipl/uipl98/uipl_4798.htm.
166 Id. (“[U]nemployment benefits payable under all Federal unemployment compensation programs (UCFE, UCX,
DUA, TRA) and joint Federal/State programs, including extended benefits (EB), are ‘Federal public benefits’ [under 8
U.S.C. § 1611(c)].”).
167 DOL Comparison of State Unemployment Laws, supra note 162, at 5-42.
168 See supra “PRWORA’s “Federal Public Benefit” Definition.”
169 See supra “PRWORA’s Interplay with Other Statutes.”
170 See 8 U.S.C. § 1611(c)(1)(B); DOJ Guidance, supra note 37, at 61,361 (explaining three-element test for “federal
public benefit” definition under prong (B)).
171 See 8 U.S.C. § 1611(c)(1)(B); DOJ Guidance, supra note 37, at 61,361. If federally funded UI benefits are not
“federal public benefits,” they may still meet the definition of “state public benefit” and thus be subject to PRWORA’s
default restrictions for such benefits. See 8 U.S.C. § 1621(c)(1), (3) (defining “state public benefit” to exclude any
“federal public benefit”).
172 See Wimberly v. Labor and Indus. Relat. Comm’n of Missouri, 479 U.S. 511, 514-15 (1987); see RL33362, supra
note 153, at 2.
173 See CRS Report RS22077, Unemployment Compensation (UC) and the Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF): Funding
Congressional Research Service
21

link to page 23 PRWORA’s Restrictions on Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Benefits: Legal Issues

arise about whether such funds constitute “appropriated funds” within the meaning of §
1611(c).174 By way of contrast, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA), which is also
administered through state agencies under DOL supervision, is funded through traditional
appropriations and thus clearly satisfies this element of the definition.175 DOL and FEMA have
taken clear positions that PRWORA restricts eligibility for DUA.176
Second, one could argue that the FUTA eligibility criteria override the stricter PRWORA criteria
under the general/specific canon of statutory construction, which provides that a more specific
statute governs over a conflicting general statute.177 Because FUTA addresses noncitizen
eligibility for unemployment insurance specifically, a court might interpret the broader FUTA
criteria to govern over the more general and restrictive PRWORA criteria.178 The
“notwithstanding” clause at the beginning of § 1611 of PRWORA might undermine this
argument—as it suggests that the provision’s eligibility restrictions are meant to override
inconsistent statutes—but the point remains that the interplay of the FUTA and PRWORA criteria
is subject to statutory interpretation.179
There is not any federal case law or other authoritative source of legal interpretation that analyzes
and resolves these legal issues about the applicability of PRWORA to federal UI programs. State
unemployment agencies appear to apply the broader eligibility rules from FUTA to federally
funded UI benefits.180 However, the legal basis for this general bureaucratic practice remains
uncertain and subject to the unexplored legal issues discussed above.

UC Benefits, by Julie M. Whittaker, at 1.
174 See 3 GOV’T ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, PRINCIPLES OF FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS LAW 15-237 (3d ed. 2008)
(explaining that GAO takes the position that “revolving funds” operate with appropriated funds even though they are
not funded through the annual appropriations process, but noting countervailing caselaw in the Federal Circuit); but cf.
Uriostegui v. Alabama Crime Victims Comp. Comm’n, No. 2:10-CV-1265-PWG, 2010 WL 11613802, at *16 (N.D.
Ala. Nov. 16, 2010) (suggesting that unemployment insurance is funded by “appropriated funds” within the meaning of
PRWORA even though “it is not funded by general tax revenues but rather by special payroll taxes on employers,
employees, or both”) (N.D. Ala. Nov. 16, 2010), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:10-CV-1265-LSC, 2011
WL 13285298 (N.D. Ala. Jan. 12, 2011).
175 See CRS Report RS22022, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA), by Julie M. Whittaker, at 1; see also
Maleche v. Solis, 692 F. Supp. 2d 679, 683-84 (S.D. Tex. 2010) (discussing structure of DUA program, including
administration by state agencies under DOL supervision).
176 Dep’t of Labor, Disaster Unemployment Assistance Program, 68 Fed. Reg. 10.932, 10,935 (Mar. 6, 2003) (“[O]nly
aliens falling within the definition of ‘qualified aliens’ are eligible for federal public benefits, which include benefits
under the DUA program. Therefore, DUA payments to other than qualified aliens are prohibited.”); Federal Emergency
Management Agency, FACT SHEET: Citizenship Status and Eligibility for Disaster Assistance FAQ (Nov. 15, 2019)
(“[Y]ou must be a U.S. citizen, non-citizen national or Qualified Alien to be eligible for Disaster Unemployment
Assistance.”), https://www.fema.gov/news-release/20200220/fact-sheet-citizenship-status-and-eligibility-disaster-
assistance-faq.
177 See RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 566 U.S. 639, 645 (2012) (“The general/specific canon is
perhaps most frequently applied to statutes in which a general permission or prohibition is contradicted by a specific
prohibition or permission. To eliminate the contradiction, the specific provision is construed as an exception to the
general one.”); CRS Report R45153, Statutory Interpretation: Theories, Tools, and Trends, by Valerie C. Brannon, at
55.
178 See RadLAX Gateway Hotel, 566 U.S. at 645.
179 See Lake Cnty. Rehabilitation Ctr., Inc. v. Shalala, 854 F. Supp. 1329, 1340-41 (N.D. Ind. 1994) (rejecting
application of the general/specific canon where it would render a “notwithstanding” clause in the general statute
“devoid of any meaning”); see generally Cisneros v. Alpine Ridge Group, 508 U.S. 10, 17-18 (1993) (discussing power
of a “notwithstanding” clause to override inconsistent provisions); United States v. Novak, 476 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th
Cir. 2007) (en banc) (“[W]e have determined the reach of each such ‘notwithstanding’ clause by taking into account the
whole of the statutory context in which it appears.”).
180 See DOL Comparison of State Unemployment Laws, supra note 162, at 5-42 (mentioning only FUTA eligibility
Congressional Research Service
22

PRWORA’s Restrictions on Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Benefits: Legal Issues

Federal Unemployment Benefits Created After PRWORA
Recently, questions have arisen about PRWORA’s applicability to new types of federally funded
unemployment benefits. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act of
2020 authorized various forms of federally funded unemployment benefits outside of FUTA,
including Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA), Federal Pandemic Unemployment
Compensation (FPUC), and Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PEUC).181
DOL’s extensive guidance about these CARES Act benefit programs does not address
PRWORA.182 It is possible that DOL has concluded that PRWORA does not apply to the
programs, but DOL has not publicized any such conclusion.183 With DOL silent on the issue, state
labor agencies appear to apply the broader FUTA criteria to the CARES Act benefits, although the
evidence of bureaucratic practice at the state level is far from conclusive.184 At least one exception
has emerged: in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the local labor agency has
taken the position that PRWORA does restrict eligibility for the CARES Act benefits.185
The CARES Act unemployment benefits would appear to constitute “federal public benefits”
under the plain language of the PRWORA definition. That definition covers “unemployment”
benefits that are delivered to individuals and that are federally funded.186 Unlike UI benefits under
FUTA, the CARES Act benefits are funded by appropriations provisions in the CARES Act, not

criteria for aliens, not PRWORA).
181 Pub. L. No. 116-136, §§ 2102, 2104, 2107 (2020); see CRS In Focus IF11475, Unemployment Insurance Provisions
in the CARES Act, by Katelin P. Isaacs and Julie M. Whittaker.
182 See Dep’t of Labor, Unemployment Insurance Program Letter No. 23-20, at 8 (May 11, 2020) (directing states to
implement immigration status verification functions “for the PEUC and PUA programs in the same manner as for the
regular UI programs,” without mentioning PRWORA), https://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/UIPL/UIPL_23-20.pdf;
see also Dep’t of Labor, Unemployment Insurance Program Letter No. 17-20, Change I, at I-3 (May 13, 2020)
(discussing state obligation to “re-verify an alien’s work authorization when considering [a] PEUC claim” and
mentioning “qualified alien status,” but apparently only in reference to work authorization),
https://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/UIPL/UIPL_17-20_Change-1.pdf; Dep’t of Labor, Unemployment Insurance
Program Letter No. 16-20, Change 1, at II-1 (Apr. 27, 2020) (addressing FUTA eligibility requirements with respect to
PUA but not mentioning PRWORA), https://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/UIPL/UIPL_16-20_Change_1.pdf.
183 See, e.g., Dep’t of Labor, Unemployment Insurance Program Letter No. 23-20, at 8 (May 11, 2020); but cf. Iva
Maurin, No PUA for CWs, SAIPAN TRIBUNE (Aug. 10, 2020) (describing letter from DOL to a Member of Congress, in
which DOL takes the position that PRWORA limits eligibility for PUA to qualified aliens),
https://www.saipantribune.com/index.php/no-pua-for-cws/.
184 See, e.g., State of Delaware Dep’t of Labor, Unemployment Benefits FAQs (May 4, 2020) (covering PUA, FPUC,
and PEUC eligibility, and explaining that alien eligibility requires work authorization), https://dol.delaware.gov/uifaqs/;
State of Wisconsin Dep’t of Workforce Development, Unemployment COVID-19 Public Information (June 24, 2020)
(similar), https://dwd.wisconsin.gov/covid19/public/ui.htm; South Carolina Dep’t of Employment & Workforce,
Unemployment Insurance During COVID-19, at 10 (July 1, 2020) (discussing only the work authorization
requirement), https://dew.sc.gov/docs/default-source/covid-faq/ui-during-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=de1c442_2.
185 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Office of the Governor, Pandemic Unemployment Assistance
(PUA) and Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC) available for Workers and Self-Employed
Individuals in the CNMI (June 10, 2020) (restricting PUA and FPUC eligibility to qualified aliens under PRWORA),
https://governor.gov.mp/news/press-releases/pandemic-unemployment-assistance-pua-and-federal-pandemic-
unemployment-compensation-fpuc-available-for-workers-and-self-employed-individuals-in-the-cnmi/; see also Iva
Maurin, SAIPAN TRIBUNE, “Congress Needed to Extend PUA benefits to CWs” (June 23, 2020),
https://www.saipantribune.com/index.php/congress-needed-to-extend-pua-benefits-to-cws/.
186 8 U.S.C. § 1611(c).
Congressional Research Service
23

link to page 9 link to page 21 link to page 25 PRWORA’s Restrictions on Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Benefits: Legal Issues

through federal employer taxes.187 Thus, the CARES Act benefits appear to meet every element of
the PRWORA definition.188
One might argue, nonetheless, that the CARES Act expresses an intent that the PRWORA
restrictions should not apply to the new unemployment benefits—in other words, that the CARES
Act repeals PRWORA by implication on this issue.189 For PUA, for instance, the CARES Act
defines “covered individuals” to generally include people who are not eligible for other
unemployment benefits and who are out of work due to COVID-19.190 The Act does not set forth
any immigration-related restrictions for PUA.191 It disqualifies people from PUA coverage based
on ability to telework and receipt of paid leave benefits, but not based on immigration status.192
On the one hand, this language could be interpreted to confer eligibility on workers affected by
COVID-19 regardless of immigration status.193 On the other hand, the statute that created the
DUA program—which served as the model for PUA—contains similarly broad eligibility
language, but federal agencies have long interpreted it to fall within PRWORA’s restrictions.194
The language may also not be seen by reviewing courts to create an “irreconcilable conflict”
sufficient to override the PRWORA rules by implication.195
After the enactment of the CARES Act, commentators expressed doubts about whether PRWORA
would restrict the benefits.196 Unless DOL or a federal court weighs in on PRWORA’s

187 See Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281, 316 (authorizing the transfer of funds from the general fund of the Treasury
to fund PUA payments to states), 320 (appropriating funds from the general fund of the Treasury to pay for FPUC
payments to states), 326 (appropriating funds from the general fund of the Treasury to pay for PEUC payments to
states).
188 See DOJ Guidance, supra note 37, at 61,361 (explaining three-element test for “federal public benefit” definition
under prong (B)).
189 See supra “Prospective Application of PRWORA.”
190 Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281, 313-14.
191 Id.
192 Id.
193 See id.
194 See id; 42 U.S.C. § 5177(a) (“The President is authorized to provide to any individual unemployed as a result of a
major disaster such benefit assistance as he deems appropriate while such individual is unemployed for the weeks of
such unemployment with respect to which the individual is not entitled to any other unemployment compensation
. . . .”). See also supra note 176 (citing agency authorities declaring that PRWORA applies to DUA).
195 See Garfield v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 811 F.3d 86, 89 (2d Cir. 2016); Christina S. Ho, Budgeting on
Autopilot: Do Sequestration and the Independent Payment Advisory Board Lock-in Status Quo Majority Advantage?,
50 TULSA L. REV. 695, 713 (2015) (“The implied repeals doctrine construes a subsequent statute as repealing an earlier
statute if the two are in irreconcilable conflict. This principle is congruent with the ‘last-in-time rule,’ which provides
that if there is no way to give effect to two statutory provisions, then the last-in-time will be favored. Under this
doctrine, . . . ‘notwithstanding’ statutes do not have force against Congress’ clear attempts to override, and must often
cede even in the face of Congress’ later implied decisions to override.”).
196 See Nat’l Immigration Law Ctr., Understanding the Impact of Key Provisions of COVID-19 Relief Bills on
Immigrant Communities, at 9 (May 27, 2020) (“The U.S. Department of Labor has not yet clarified the eligibility
criteria that will apply to the new programs created by the CARES Act. It is possible that the Department of Labor will
apply a more restrictive set of eligibility criteria to these programs, such as those used in the Disaster Unemployment
Assistance Program (DUA).”), https://www.nilc.org/issues/economic-support/impact-of-covid19-relief-bills-on-
immigrant-communities/; Nat’l Employment Law Project, Immigrant Workers’ Eligibility for Unemployment
Insurance (Mar. 31, 2020) (“It is not yet clear whether [PRWORA’s eligibility restrictions] will apply to benefits under
the temporary Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program established by Congress in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief,
and Economic Security (CARES) Act.”), https://www.nelp.org/publication/immigrant-workers-eligibility-
unemployment-insurance/; see also CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10442, Recovery Rebates and Unemployment
Compensation under the CARES Act: Immigration-Related Eligibility Criteria, by Ben Harrington (April 7, 2020).
Congressional Research Service
24

link to page 15 link to page 29 link to page 15 PRWORA’s Restrictions on Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Benefits: Legal Issues

applicability to PUA and other new unemployment benefits authorized by the CARES Act, such
legal uncertainty may persist.
Federal Student Aid
The U.S. Department of Education (ED) has woven PRWORA into its guidance to institutions of
higher education about eligibility rules for federal student aid programs authorized by Title IV of
the Higher Education Act (referred to here as HEA programs).197 ED guidance specifies particular
categories of aliens who are eligible to participate in HEA programs.198 These categories
generally track the categories of “qualified aliens” under PRWORA, but not perfectly.199
However, the guidance does not explain the legal basis for the eligibility categories—it mentions
PRWORA only in passing200—and the relevant regulations continue to cite different immigrant-
related eligibility criteria in the HEA itself.201 As a result, courts have expressed confusion about
whether PRWORA overrides the HEA criteria.202 This confusion exists even though PRWORA
cites the HEA programs by authorizing statute at one point, to make clear that the additional
restrictions for “federal means-tested public benefits” do not apply to the HEA programs.203
(PRWORA does not create specialized rules for the HEA programs, as it does for SSI, SNAP,
TANF, Medicaid, and SSBG.)204
Section 484 of the HEA establishes the following immigration-related eligibility criteria:
(a) In general In order to receive any grant, loan, or work assistance under this subchapter,
a student must—
. . . .
(5) be a citizen or national of the United States, a permanent resident of the United
States, or able to provide evidence from the Immigration and Naturalization Service
that he or she is in the United States for other than a temporary purpose with the
intention of becoming a citizen or permanent resident; . . . .205
These criteria have been in the HEA since 1986.206 Since the enactment of PRWORA in 1996,
Congress has made amendments to the HEA criteria that concern citizens of the Freely Associated
States (Micronesia, Palau, and the Marshall Islands), but has not otherwise amended the
criteria.207 The outer boundaries of the language granting eligibility to aliens “in the United States
for other than a temporary purpose with the intention of becoming a citizen or permanent

197 See 20 U.S.C. § 1091(a)(5).
198 See Federal Student Aid Handbook, supra note 93, Vol. 1, at 34.
199 Compare id. at 34-41, with 8 U.S.C. § 1641(b), (c); see infra note 211.
200 Federal Student Aid Handbook, supra note 93, Vol. 1, at 41 (mentioning PRWORA in connection with U-visa
holders).
201 34 C.F.R. § 668.33.
202 See Mashiri v. Dep’t of Educ., 724 F.3d 1028, 1033 (9th Cir. 2013) (declining to decide how PRWORA and HEA
criteria interact).
203 8 U.S.C. § 1613(c)(2)(H).
204 See id. § 1612.
205 20 U.S.C. § 1091(a)(5).
206 An Act to reauthorize and revise the Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes, Pub. L. No. 99–498, 100
Stat. 1268, 1480 (1986).
207 See, e.g., Pub. L. No. 110–315 (2008) (deleting “citizen of any of the Freely Associated States” from the eligibility
criteria).
Congressional Research Service
25

link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 15 PRWORA’s Restrictions on Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Benefits: Legal Issues

resident” are not well defined.208 It seems likely, however, that this language would grant
eligibility to at least some aliens who are not “qualified aliens” under PRWORA.209 Thus, as in
the case of unemployment insurance, the eligibility criteria in the HEA for federal student aid
appear broader than PRWORA.
In contrast to the approach taken by DOL in determining alien eligibility for UI, ED appears to
have taken efforts to conform its guidance on eligibility for financial aid programs under the HEA
to PRWORA. The Federal Student Aid Handbook is an annual guide to HEA student aid
programs that ED publishes for financial aid administrators in higher education.210 With two
discrepancies, the Handbook identifies only those categories of aliens who are “qualified aliens”
under PRWORA as eligible for HEA student aid programs.211 Similarly, the Department’s
application form for federal student aid—the Free Application for Federal Student Aid
(FAFSA)—defines “eligible noncitizen” in a way that closely tracks the PRWORA definition of
“qualified alien.”212 Thus, PRWORA apparently forms the foundation for the Department’s
guidance.213
However, some lack of clarity on this point remains. The existence of the two discrepancies
between the guidance and PRWORA, along with certain statements by ED, indicate that ED may
blend the HEA eligibility rules with the PRWORA rules to some extent.214 Further, the guidance
does not fully explain the legal basis for the eligibility restrictions it describes—the Federal
Student Aid Handbook mentions PRWORA at one point, but only to explain the ineligibility of

208 See Mashiri, 724 F.3d at 1033 (holding that status as asylum applicant does not satisfy the HEA criteria, without
providing general interpretation of the statutory standard); Department of Education Reply Brief, Mashiri v. Dep’t of
Educ., 2010 WL 1229084 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2010) (“[T]here is no definitive interpretation of this broad language,
which could literally include all persons unlawfully present in the United States who plan to stay until someday
legalized . . . .”); but cf. Dep’t of Educ., Interim Final Rule, Eligibility of Students at Institutions of Higher Education
for Funds under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act,
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/caresactifreligibility6112020.pdf, at 9 n.1 (contending that the HEA
eligibility standards are “similar in most respects” to the PRWORA standards, such that “there is little remaining
application for the prohibition in 8 U.S.C. 1611 once [HEA] eligibility requirements have been applied”).
209 See Mashiri, 724 F.3d at 1032-33 (analyzing HEA eligibility criteria separately after determining that an alien
clearly did not qualify for federal student aid under PRWORA); Federal Student Aid Handbook, supra note 93, Vol. 1,
at 41 (regarding U-visa holders).
210 Federal Student Aid Handbook, supra note 93, at AVG-1.
211 Id., Vol. 1, at 30, 34-42. The Handbook states that aliens who have been granted withholding of removal are not
eligible for HEA programs, id. at 41, but such aliens are “qualified aliens” under PRWORA. 8 U.S.C. § 1641(b)(5).
The Handbook also states that Citizens of the Freely Associated States are eligible for some HEA programs, including
Pell Grants. Federal Student Aid Handbook, supra note 93, Vol. 1, at 30. These aliens are not “qualified aliens” under
PRWORA. 8 U.S.C. § 1641(b). The latter discrepancy appears to arise from express eligibility rules included in
statutory implementations of the United States’ compacts with the Freely Associated States. See 48 U.S.C. § 1905(h)(5)
(establishing eligibility for certain federal educational grants); Federal Student Aid Handbook, supra note 93, Vol. 1, at
30 (discussing eligibility rules under statutes amending the compacts).
212 Dep’t of Educ., Free Application for Federal Student Aid, at 9 (July 1, 2020–June 30, 2021),
https://studentaid.gov/sites/default/files/2020-21-fafsa.pdf. The notable discrepancy with the PRWORA “qualified
alien” definition is, again, that the FAFSA does not include aliens granted withholding of removal on the list of eligible
noncitizens. See id.
213 See Dep’t of Educ., Interim Final Rule, Eligibility of Students at Institutions of Higher Education for Funds under
the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, 85 Fed. Reg. 36494, 36497 (June 17, 2020) (stating
that verification systems for Title IV HEA financial aid programs ensure “compliance with the independent statutory
restriction found in 8 U.S.C. 1611”) [hereinafter ED CARES Act IFR].
214 Id. at 36496 n.1 (suggesting that the Department applies HEA rules and PRWORA rules together); Federal Student
Aid Handbook, supra note 93, Vol. 1, at 41 (rendering aliens granted withholding of removal, who are qualified aliens
under PRWORA, ineligible for HEA federal student aid).
Congressional Research Service
26

link to page 15 link to page 15 PRWORA’s Restrictions on Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Benefits: Legal Issues

one discrete category of aliens (U visa holders).215 It does not cite PRWORA as the authority for
the overall framework of eligibility restrictions in the guidance.216 The Department’s regulation
on alien eligibility continues to track the criteria from HEA § 484.217
Federal case law reflects confusion about which set of immigration-related eligibility rules govern
HEA financial aid programs: PRWORA, the program-specific criteria in HEA § 484, or both. In a
2013 Ninth Circuit case, a student argued that HEA § 484 governed because it is the more
specific statute.218 The Ninth Circuit declined to resolve the issue, holding instead that the student
was ineligible for financial aid under either statute—in other words, that he did not meet even the
more forgiving eligibility criteria of HEA § 484.219 In a different case, the Eleventh Circuit in
dicta cited HEA § 484 as the statute that “set[s] the eligibility standard for federal student aid.”220
No court has resolved whether PRWORA renders a nonqualified alien ineligible for federal
student aid even if he or she would be eligible under HEA § 484.221 The ED guidance suggests
that PRWORA would bar eligibility in such a case, given that it generally tracks the PRWORA
eligibility rules and cites PRWORA to explain the disqualification of aliens with U visa status,222
but the federal cases show that the question remains open.223
Emergency Financial Aid Under the CARES Act
More recently, confusion over the applicable eligibility rules for aliens has extended into a new
form of federal student aid authorized by the CARES Act. Section 18004 of that Act creates the
Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF) to distribute funds to institutions of higher
education for costs related to COVID-19.224 Section 18004 does not mention PRWORA or
otherwise address the subject of alien eligibility.225 It does, however, articulate general parameters
not related to immigration for how institutions may use HEERF funds, including a requirement
that universities use at least half of their funds on emergency financial aid grants for students:
[A]n institution of higher education . . . may use the funds received to cover any costs
associated with significant changes to the delivery of instruction due to the coronavirus, so
long as such costs do not include payment to contractors for the provision of pre-enrollment
recruitment activities; endowments; or capital outlays associated with facilities related to
athletics, sectarian instruction, or religious worship. Institutions of higher education shall
use no less than 50 percent of such funds to provide emergency financial aid grants to
students for expenses related to the disruption of campus operations due to coronavirus

215 Federal Student Aid Handbook, supra note 93, Vol. 1, at 41.
216 Id. at 34-42.
217 34 C.F.R. § 668.33.
218 Mashiri v. Dep’t of Educ., 724 F.3d 1028, 1032-33 (9th Cir. 2013).
219 Id. at 1033 (“Even if this statute [HEA § 484] precluded the application of 8 U.S.C. § 1641, none of the documents
Mashiri provided during the eligibility verification process could conceivably show the statute’s required non-
temporary purpose.”)
220 Estrada v. Becker, 917 F.3d 1298, 1304 (11th Cir. 2019).
221 See Mashiri, 724 F.3d at 1033 (leaving the question open).
222 Federal Student Aid Handbook, supra note 93, Vol. 1, at 41.
223 See Mashiri, 724 F.3d at 1033.
224 See Pub. L. No. 116-136, § 18004, 134 Stat. 281, 567 (2020) (codified at 20 U.S.C. § 3401 Note).
225 See id.
Congressional Research Service
27

link to page 29 PRWORA’s Restrictions on Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Benefits: Legal Issues

(including eligible expenses under a student’s cost of attendance, such as food, housing,
course materials, technology, health care, and child care).226
Soon after enactment, some universities expressed uncertainty about whether DACA recipients
and other nonqualified aliens were eligible for the emergency financial aid grants under section
18004.227 In other words, schools were confused about whether PRWORA restricted the
emergency financial aid.228 ED issued guidance on April 22, 2020, about one month after
enactment of the CARES Act, stating that “[o]nly students who are or could be eligible to
participate in programs under Section 484 of the HEA may receive emergency financial aid
grants” under the CARES Act.229 The guidance noted that, to be eligible for the HEA programs, a
student must be a U.S. citizen or “eligible noncitizen.”230 This CARES Act guidance did not
mention PRWORA.231 However, by invoking the Department’s immigration-related eligibility
rules for HEA student aid programs, which as described above appear to be based on PRWORA,
the April 2020 CARES Act guidance seemed to indicate that the Department was interpreting the
PRWORA restrictions to apply to the new emergency financial aid grants as well.232 In other
words, because the restrictions in ED’s HEA guidance generally come from PRWORA, the
immigration restrictions in ED’s CARES Act guidance also appeared to be based on
PRWORA.233
One month later, after lawsuits challenging the April 2020 guidance had been filed, the
Department issued new guidance on its website that expressly cited PRWORA as a source of
eligibility restrictions for the emergency financial aid.234 Then, in June 2020, the Department
issued an interim final rule reiterating its position that only students eligible to participate in HEA
programs were eligible to receive HEERF funds.235 In the preamble to the rule, ED argues mainly
that HEA § 484 limits eligibility for HEERF funds.236 But the preamble also reaffirms ED’s

226 Id. § 18004(c) (Uses of Funds).
227 Lilah Burke, Still in Limbo?, INSIDE HIGHER ED (Apr. 14, 2020) (“[S]ome in higher education have questioned
whether the aid will be available to students who immigrated to the U.S. illegally as children, many of whom have
received work authorization and relief from deportation from the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.
Though the CARES Act does not specify that students must be eligible for federal financial aid (which DACA
recipients are not), existing law signed in the 1990s specifies that those who immigrated illegally are ineligible for
federal benefits.”), https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/04/14/stimulus-benefits-unclear-daca-students.
228 See id. (mentioning “existing law signed in the 1990s”).
229 Dep’t of Educ., Frequently Asked Questions about the Emergency Financial Aid Grants to Students under Section
18004 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act (Apr. 22, 2020),
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/heerfstudentfaqs.pdf.
230 Id.
231 Id.
232 See id.
233 See id.
234 Dep’t of Educ., Updated Statement 5/21/2020 (“The underlying statutory terms in the CARES Act are legally
binding, as are any other applicable statutory terms, such as the restriction in 8 U.S.C. § 1611 on eligibility for Federal
public benefits including such grants [under CARES Act sec. 18004].”),
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/caresact.html.
235 ED CARES Act IFR, supra note 213, at 36947 (“For purposes of the phrases ‘grants to students’ and ‘emergency
financial aid grants to students’ in sections 18004(a)(2), (a)(3), and (c) of the CARES Act, ‘student’ is defined as an
individual who is, or could be, eligible under section 484 of the HEA, to participate in programs under title IV of the
HEA.”)
236 Id. at 36945-47.
Congressional Research Service
28

link to page 29 PRWORA’s Restrictions on Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Benefits: Legal Issues

stance that PRWORA prohibits nonqualified aliens from receiving HEERF funds and concludes
that the HEA and PRWORA limitations are “similar in most respects.”237
Lawsuits filed in federal district court have challenged ED’s position that students are not eligible
for the emergency financial aid if they are not eligible for HEA programs.238 The lawsuits remain
pending. They argue that HEA limitations do not apply to HEERF—which was enacted as an
independent statute and not as an amendment to the HEA—and that Congress did not specify any
other immigration-related eligibility restrictions.239 Instead, in the plaintiffs’ view, the general
parameters quoted above on “Uses of Funds” in section 18004 of the CARES Act establish the
only applicable restrictions on how the funds can be used.240 The plaintiffs also rely on a formula
in the statute that allocates funds based on the number of full-time, nonremote students at an
institution.241 Because the statute does not exclude students from the allocation formula based on
immigration status, the plaintiffs argue that the students should not be barred from receiving
benefits based on immigration status, either.242
ED has argued in response that PRWORA restricts eligibility for emergency financial aid through
HEERF to “qualified aliens.”243 The emergency financial aid comes in the form of “grants” and
thus deliver “federal public benefits” within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1611, the Department
argues.244 (ED also argues in the lawsuits, as in the preamble to the June interim final rule, that
the eligibility restrictions from HEA § 484 apply to the HEERF funds.245 In the preliminary stages
of the ongoing lawsuits, ED has lost that argument.246 This report about PRWORA does not
explore whether the HEA applies to the HEERF funds.)
Thus far in the lawsuits, federal district courts have disagreed about PRWORA’s applicability.
The District of Massachusetts and Eastern District of California held in preliminary rulings that
plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their argument that “the specific, one-time
emergency disbursement of HEERF Assistance in the CARES Act is not subject to the more
general prohibition in the earlier statute [PRWORA].”247 In other words, according to these
courts, the CARES Act overrides PRWORA by authorizing students to receive the HEERF grants
and not specifying restrictions based on immigration status.248 In contrast, the Eastern District of

237 Id. at 36946.
238 See Oakley v. DeVos, -- F. Supp. 3d --, 2020 WL 3268661, at *13 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2020); Washington v. DeVos,
-- F. Supp. 3d -- , 2020 WL 4275041, at *1 (E.D. Wash. July 24, 2020); Noerand v. Devos, -- F. Supp. 3d --, 2020 WL
4274559, at *1 (D. Mass. July 24, 2020).
239 See Oakley, 2020 WL 3268661 at *7.
240 See id.
241 See Pub. L. No. 116-136, § 18004(a), 134 Stat. 281, 567 (2020).
242 See Oakley, 2020 WL 3268661 at *15.
243 Id. at *13 (“[D]efendants raise the argument that plaintiffs cannot prevail on the relief they seek here for the
independent reason that, regardless of whether title IV’s eligibility criteria apply, 8 U.S.C. section 1611 bars most non-
citizens (i.e., those not considered ‘qualified aliens’ under the statute) from receiving ‘Federal public benefits.’”);
Washington, 2020 WL 4275041 at *6; Noerand, 2020 WL 4274559 at *6.
244 See ED CARES Act IFR, supra note 213, at 36496. ED also argues that HEERF grants are federal public benefits
under prong (B) of the definition, because they are “postsecondary education” benefits paid with appropriated federal
funds. Id.
245 See Washington, 2020 WL 4275041 at *2-3.
246 Id. (“[T]he limited incorporation of certain provisions of Title IV [of the HEA] into the CARES Act does not imply
a general Congressional intent to subject all CARES Act HEERF funds to the restrictions in Title IV.”); Oakley, 2020
WL 3268661 at *11.
247 Oakley, 2020 WL 3268661 at *15; Noerand, 2020 WL 4274559 at *7.
248 Noerand, 2020 WL 4274559 at *7 (“Section 18004 of the CARES Act is a specific statutory enactment in which
Congressional Research Service
29

PRWORA’s Restrictions on Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Benefits: Legal Issues

Washington held at summary judgment that PRWORA does restrict the HEERF grants.249 The
CARES Act language about student eligibility, in this court’s view, “is too ambiguous to
demonstrate a ‘clear and manifest’ intent to override the longstanding and generally applicable
PRWORA bar.”250
As the lawsuits progress, they could generate useful precedent for analyzing PRWORA’s
applicability to newly created benefit programs. If Congress is silent about PRWORA and about
immigration-related eligibility criteria when creating a new benefit program that fits the definition
of “federal public benefit,” does PRWORA apply? Will courts interpret later statutes to override
PRWORA by implication, even if the statutes do not establish immigration-related criteria that
directly conflict with PRWORA? Even if the lawsuits do clarify these questions, however, the
lawsuits do not have potential to resolve the legal questions described above about the
retrospective application of PRWORA’s notwithstanding clause with respect to the preexisting
HEA criteria for federal financial aid programs.251 In other words, the HEERF lawsuits may
resolve questions about the prospective application of PRWORA, but not the retrospective
application of it.
Conclusion
Determining whether PRWORA restricts alien eligibility for specific federal benefit programs
triggers two main interpretive issues: (1) whether the benefits in question are “federal public
benefits” under the PRWORA definition, and (2) whether the PRWORA eligibility restrictions
apply notwithstanding countervailing eligibility language in more specific program statutes.
Other than for Medicaid, TANF, SSI, and SNAP—the major programs that are the subject of
specialized rules under PRWORA—these questions often blend together to create confusion
about PRWORA’s applicability to particular federal programs. This confusion tends to persist
where federal agencies do not issue definitive guidance on PRWORA. Federally funded
unemployment insurance benefits under FUTA and federal student aid under the Higher
Education Act are prime examples of this phenomenon.
Issues about PRWORA’s applicability to new benefit programs have become particularly salient
during the COVID-19 pandemic. When Congress creates a new federal benefit program without
specifying rules for alien eligibility, PRWORA’s inherent ambiguities often make it difficult to
predict what eligibility rules will apply in practice. Federal agencies may take different
approaches to similar issues. The federal benefits authorized by the CARES Act are a case in
point. Whereas DOL remained mostly silent about whether PRWORA restricts eligibility for the
new types of federally funded unemployment benefits authorized by the Act, the Department of
Education has taken the position that PRWORA bars nonqualified aliens from receiving
emergency financial aid under the same Act. As a result, even though unemployment and
postsecondary education benefits receive similar treatment under PRWORA, these two types of
CARES Act benefits appear to be subject to different eligibility rules in practice. Congress may
see fit to leave eligibility issues to agency interpretation in this fashion. If Congress wants clarity
about the immigration-related rules that will govern new benefit programs, its options are to state
expressly in the authorizing legislation whether PRWORA applies, expressly establish

Congress unambiguously directed certain aid to a plainly defined group of people. In these circumstances, to the extent
that the CARES Act directs a federal public benefit, it constitutes a statutory exception to Section 1611’s general denial
of federal public benefits.”).
249 Washington, 2020 WL 4275041 at *6.
250 Id.
251 See id. (not addressing the interplay between HEA § 484 and PRWORA).
Congressional Research Service
30

PRWORA’s Restrictions on Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Benefits: Legal Issues

immigration-related eligibility criteria that differ from PRWORA in the authorizing legislation, or
both. Alternatively, Congress could repeal PRWORA or amend it to expressly limit its
prospective applicability, leaving new benefit statutes as the only source of immigration-related
eligibility restrictions for the benefits they create.
Congressional Research Service
31

PRWORA’s Restrictions on Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Benefits: Legal Issues

Appendix. Glossary
Qualified Alien
Aliens who fall within one of the fol owing categories enumerated in 8 U.S.C. §
1641(b) and (c):

lawful permanent residents;

asylees;

refugees;

aliens paroled into the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)
for a period of at least one year;

aliens granted withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. §
1231(b)(3), or its predecessor statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1253 (for aliens
placed into deportation proceedings before April 1, 1997);252

aliens granted conditional entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1153(a)(7), as in
effect before April 1, 1980;

Cuban and Haitian entrants, as defined in § 501(e) of the Refugee
Education Assistance Act of 1980;253 and

certain abused spouses and children described in 8 U.S.C. §
1641(c)(1)-(3); victims of a severe form of trafficking in persons
who have acquired or set forth a prima facie case for T visa
nonimmigrant status.
Federal Public Benefit
Defined as fol ows in 8 U.S.C. § 1611(c):
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), for purposes of this chapter the
term “Federal public benefit” means-
(A) any grant, contract, loan, professional license, or commercial
license provided by an agency of the United States or by appropriated
funds of the United States; and
(B) any retirement, welfare, health, disability, public or assisted
housing, postsecondary education, food assistance, unemployment
benefit, or any other similar benefit for which payments or assistance
are provided to an individual, household, or family eligibility unit by an
agency of the United States or by appropriated funds of the United
States.
(2) Such term shall not apply-
(A) to any contract, professional license, or commercial license for a
nonimmigrant whose visa for entry is related to such employment in
the United States, or to a citizen of a freely associated state, if section
141 of the applicable compact of free association approved in Public
Law 99–239 or 99–658 (or a successor provision) is in effect;
(B) with respect to benefits for an alien who as a work authorized
nonimmigrant or as an alien lawful y admitted for permanent residence
under the Immigration and Nationality Act [8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.]
qualified for such benefits and for whom the United States under
reciprocal treaty agreements is required to pay benefits, as
determined by the Attorney General, after consultation with the
Secretary of State; or
(C) to the issuance of a professional license to, or the renewal of a
professional license by, a foreign national not physically present in the
United States.

252 See Yousefi v. INS, 260 F.3d 318, 322 n.2 (4th Cir. 2001) (“The withholding of deportation provision, appearing in
INA § 243(h) and codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1253(h), was repealed. A similar form of relief is still available, however,
under the current INA § 241(b)(3).”) (citations omitted).
253 Pub. L. No. 96-422, 94 Stat. 1799 (1980).
Congressional Research Service
32

PRWORA’s Restrictions on Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Benefits: Legal Issues

Federal Means-Tested
PRWORA does not define this term. The bil that originally passed in the House
Public Benefit
contained the fol owing definition:
[A] public benefit (including cash, medical, housing, and food assistance and
social services) of the Federal Government in which the eligibility of an
individual, household, or family eligibility unit for benefits, or the amount of
such benefits, or both are determined on the basis of income, resources, or
financial need of the individual, household, or unit.254
Due to a point of order, Congress omitted the definition from the final version
of the Act. The Conference Report states that “[i]t is the intent of conferees
that th[e] definition be presumed to be in place for purposes of this title.”255
Federal agency guidance has identified the fol owing programs as delivering
federal means-tested public benefits: TANF,256 Medicaid,257 SSI,258 and SNAP.259
The Child Health Insurance Program (CHIP) also appears to be considered a
federal means-tested public benefit,260 although, notwithstanding PRWORA,
states have the option to provide CHIP and Medicaid to “lawful y residing”
children and pregnant women.261
Specified Federal
SSI and SNAP.262
Programs
Designated Federal
TANF, SSBG, and Medicaid.263
Programs

254 H.R. REP. NO. 104–725, at 381-82 (1996).
255 Id.
256 Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996
(PRWORA): Interpretation of “Federal Means-Tested Public Benefit”, 62 Fed. Reg. 45256, 45257 (Aug. 26, 1997)
(“[T]he HHS programs that constitute ‘Federal means-tested public benefits’ under PRWORA are Medicaid and
TANF.”).
257 Id.
258 Soc. Sec. Admin, Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996: Federal Means-Tested
Public Benefits Paid by the Social Security Administration, 62 Fed. Reg. 45284, 45284-85 (Aug. 26, 1997) (“The
Social Security Administration announces that, of the programs it administers, only supplemental security income
benefits under title XVI of the Social Security Act are ‘Federal means-tested public benefits’ for purposes of
[PRWORA].”).
259 Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Dep’t of Agric., Federal Means-Tested Public Benefits, 63 Fed. Reg. 36653, 36653
(July 7, 1998) (“This notice announces that the Food Stamp Program and the food assistance block grant programs in
Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianna Islands and American Samoa are Federal means-tested
programs.”); see also Garnett v. Zeilinger, 313 F. Supp. 3d 147, 151 n.1 (D.D.C. 2018) (“The program’s name was
changed from its original name, the ‘Food Stamp Program,’ to SNAP in 2008. See Food, Conservation, and Energy Act
of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110–234, § 4001, 122 Stat. 923, 1092.”).
260 See Exec. Order 13880, Collecting Information about Citizenship Status in Connection with the Decennial Census,
84 Fed. Reg. 33821, 33823 (July 16, 2019) (“Aliens who are “qualified aliens”—that is, lawful permanent residents,
persons granted asylum, and certain other legal immigrants—are, with limited exceptions, ineligible to receive benefits
through Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Medicaid, and State Children’s Health Insurance Program for 5
years after entry into the United States (8 U.S.C. 1613(a).”).
261 Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-3 § 214(a), 123 Stat. 8, 56-57
(codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1396b(v)(4)(A)).
262 8 U.S.C. § 1612(a)(3).
263 Id. § 1612(b)(3).
Congressional Research Service
33

PRWORA’s Restrictions on Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Benefits: Legal Issues

Author Information

Ben Harrington

Legislative Attorney

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R46510 · VERSION 1 · NEW
34