Although recent discussions about the Trump Administration’s immigration policies have focused on the treatment of undocumented migrants and asylum-seekers at the border and in detention, the Administration has also sought to curtail legal immigration and make conditions more onerous for non-citizens who are lawfully present. The most recent example of these restrictive efforts is the long-anticipated public charge rule, which was published in the Federal Register by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on August 14. Unless halted by litigation, the rule will take effect on October 15, creating punishing new challenges for immigrant patients and their health care providers.

In July 2012, 25 legal and public health academics convened a workshop to explore ways in which legal academics can better strengthen engagements with public health practice. The group recognized that the law has always been an integral part of public health, yet legal scholars are too often removed from the front line practice. In order to bridge this disconnect so that practitioners can benefit from and utilize ongoing legal research, the group pledged: (1) to work together to create a narrative counter to the “public responsibility” trope that dominated public health policy discussions; (2) to reduce overreliance on regulation and focus on shaping social norms directly via the law; (3) to assess the balance between targeting at-risk populations while still respecting rights; (4) to bring focused litigation against regulatory capture; (5) to research the impact of law on health; and (6) to bridge silos in order to create a unified front for improving public health.