WASHINGTON: The U.S. government’s two-year-old policy of invoking Covid-19 precautions to turn back hundreds of thousands of migrants at the Mexican border will remain in place for the time being, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.
The decision to maintain the controversial rule known as Title 42 delayed a looming political crisis for President Joe Biden, as thousands lined up at the southern border in expectation that politics was about to end.
But the conservative-dominated high court has accepted a petition from 19 states warning of a surge of migrants if the policy introduced under former President Donald Trump in March 2020 is lifted as ordered by a lower court.
The Supreme Court said that Title 42 – which allows for the speedy eviction even of people who could benefit from asylum — would remain in place pending his decision on the matter, and that he would hear the case in February.
“States argue that they face an immigration crisis at the border and policymakers have failed to agree on adequate measures to deal with it,” the court said in its 5- 4.
“The only avenue left to alleviate the crisis, the states suggest, is an order from this Court directing the federal government to continue its Covid-era Title 42 policies for as long as possible.”
The ruling could give the Biden administration, which had acknowledged Title 42 was wrong and prepared for a wave of asylum-seeking migrants, until May or June before a final decision.
Leaving the White House for a vacation on Tuesday night, Biden told reporters that the end of Title 42 was “overdue,” but that the administration would consider the court’s decision until a final decision is made. returned, probably in June.
“In the meantime, we have to enforce it,” Biden said.
White House spokeswoman Karine Jean-Pierre said earlier in the day that the administration would prepare for the next hearing.
“We are moving forward with our preparations to manage the border in a safe, orderly and humane manner when Title 42 is finally lifted,” Jean-Pierre said in a statement.
“Title 42 is a public health measure, not an immigration enforcement measure, and it should not be extended indefinitely.”
“To truly fix our broken immigration system, we need Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform,” she said.
Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy said removing Title 42 “would have made our border crisis worse, and the White House seemed willing to let that happen.”
“Glad to see the Supreme Court stepping in to preserve it, but we need a permanent solution,” he said on Twitter.
While the government had prepared for the end of Title 42 with more personnel and more fences along the border, it was unclear how this would have stemmed an expected surge.
Some 2.5 million people were intercepted trying to cross the US southern border in the 12 months to November.
Whereas two years ago most migrants came from Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, more than half now come from much further afield – Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba, Eastern Europe and Asia.
Rising numbers of migrants at the border pose a growing political headache for Biden and his Democratic Party, which Republicans have repeatedly sought to cast as soft on illegal immigration.
Critics called Title 42 “inhuman”.
“As a Covid control strategy, humanitarian policy, and border policy, Title 42 has not only failed, but has caused irreparable damage on a massive scale,” said Karla Marisol Vargas, senior counsel at the Texas Civil Rights Project, in a statement.
“People continued to make the long and dangerous journey to the border because for many black, indigenous and brown communities, the United States remains their last and best chance for survival,” she said.
Washington-based Refugees International also criticized the ruling, saying the Supreme Court “will be responsible for what the trial court called ‘irreparable harm’ to asylum seekers deported under Title 42.” .
The Supreme Court’s decision was mainly divided along ideological lines and raised new questions about the willingness of the conservative majority to intervene in burning political issues.
The petition they accepted came from 19 conservative Republican-ruled states that weren’t even parties to the original Title 42 lawsuit.
Five conservatives made up the majority in the decision, while conservative Neil Gorsuch sided with the court’s three progressives in opposing the expansion of Title 42.
In his dissent, Gorsuch said he understood border states’ concerns about a surge in migrants.
However, he wrote, “the current border crisis is not a Covid crisis. And the courts should not be concerned with perpetuating administrative decrees designed for an emergency just because elected officials have not responded to another emergency”.
The decision to maintain the controversial rule known as Title 42 delayed a looming political crisis for President Joe Biden, as thousands lined up at the southern border in expectation that politics was about to end.
But the conservative-dominated high court has accepted a petition from 19 states warning of a surge of migrants if the policy introduced under former President Donald Trump in March 2020 is lifted as ordered by a lower court.
The Supreme Court said that Title 42 – which allows for the speedy eviction even of people who could benefit from asylum — would remain in place pending his decision on the matter, and that he would hear the case in February.
“States argue that they face an immigration crisis at the border and policymakers have failed to agree on adequate measures to deal with it,” the court said in its 5- 4.
“The only avenue left to alleviate the crisis, the states suggest, is an order from this Court directing the federal government to continue its Covid-era Title 42 policies for as long as possible.”
The ruling could give the Biden administration, which had acknowledged Title 42 was wrong and prepared for a wave of asylum-seeking migrants, until May or June before a final decision.
Leaving the White House for a vacation on Tuesday night, Biden told reporters that the end of Title 42 was “overdue,” but that the administration would consider the court’s decision until a final decision is made. returned, probably in June.
“In the meantime, we have to enforce it,” Biden said.
White House spokeswoman Karine Jean-Pierre said earlier in the day that the administration would prepare for the next hearing.
“We are moving forward with our preparations to manage the border in a safe, orderly and humane manner when Title 42 is finally lifted,” Jean-Pierre said in a statement.
“Title 42 is a public health measure, not an immigration enforcement measure, and it should not be extended indefinitely.”
“To truly fix our broken immigration system, we need Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform,” she said.
Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy said removing Title 42 “would have made our border crisis worse, and the White House seemed willing to let that happen.”
“Glad to see the Supreme Court stepping in to preserve it, but we need a permanent solution,” he said on Twitter.
While the government had prepared for the end of Title 42 with more personnel and more fences along the border, it was unclear how this would have stemmed an expected surge.
Some 2.5 million people were intercepted trying to cross the US southern border in the 12 months to November.
Whereas two years ago most migrants came from Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, more than half now come from much further afield – Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba, Eastern Europe and Asia.
Rising numbers of migrants at the border pose a growing political headache for Biden and his Democratic Party, which Republicans have repeatedly sought to cast as soft on illegal immigration.
Critics called Title 42 “inhuman”.
“As a Covid control strategy, humanitarian policy, and border policy, Title 42 has not only failed, but has caused irreparable damage on a massive scale,” said Karla Marisol Vargas, senior counsel at the Texas Civil Rights Project, in a statement.
“People continued to make the long and dangerous journey to the border because for many black, indigenous and brown communities, the United States remains their last and best chance for survival,” she said.
Washington-based Refugees International also criticized the ruling, saying the Supreme Court “will be responsible for what the trial court called ‘irreparable harm’ to asylum seekers deported under Title 42.” .
The Supreme Court’s decision was mainly divided along ideological lines and raised new questions about the willingness of the conservative majority to intervene in burning political issues.
The petition they accepted came from 19 conservative Republican-ruled states that weren’t even parties to the original Title 42 lawsuit.
Five conservatives made up the majority in the decision, while conservative Neil Gorsuch sided with the court’s three progressives in opposing the expansion of Title 42.
In his dissent, Gorsuch said he understood border states’ concerns about a surge in migrants.
However, he wrote, “the current border crisis is not a Covid crisis. And the courts should not be concerned with perpetuating administrative decrees designed for an emergency just because elected officials have not responded to another emergency”.
