Breaking: Supreme Court orders Trump-era Title 42 immigration policy to continue, Gorsuch sides with liberal justices



The Supreme Court sided with a group of Republican states asking that the Title 42 immigration policy remain in place until the court can hear the full arguments from the litigants.

The ruling was issued Tuesday afternoon after a vote of five to four, with Justice Neil Gorsuch siding with the liberal wing.

The lawsuit was filed by Republican attorneys general from 19 states, led by Texas, that were protesting the end of the Trump era policy on the basis that it would result in a massive wave of illegal crossings at the border.

Title 42 has been called the "Remain in Mexico" policy as it allows the U.S. government to deport migrants who are applying for asylum to Mexico rather than allow them to remain the U.S. while their applications are processed. Critics say that migrants whose applications are rejected often ignore orders from law enforcement and stay in the U.S. illegally.

Illegal immigration advocates and others on the left say that the policy is motivated by racism and xenophobia and leads to asylum seekers experiencing undue distress while waiting in Mexico. They also argue that the emergency basis of the order, the coronavirus pandemic, is no longer a present threat justifying the policy.

Gorsuch dissented with the majority conservative ruling and argued that Title 42 should end as the Biden administration requested because there is no longer a coronavirus pandemic situation in the U.S.

“[T]he current border crisis is not a COVID crisis," Gorsuch wrote in his dissent.

"And courts should not be in the business of perpetuating administrative edicts designed for one emergency only because elected officials have failed to address a different emergency," he added. "We are a Court of law, not policymakers of last resort.”

The court set a February date to hear arguments in the case. A final decision is expected in June.

Here's more about the ruling:

Legal ramifications of upholding Title 42 immigration policywww.youtube.com

Supreme Court grants request from Republican states to delay end of Title 42 'Remain in Mexico' policy



The U.S. Supreme Court granted a request from several Republican states asking for the end of the controversial Title 42 "Remain in Mexico" policy to be delayed.

Title 42 was implemented during the Trump administration in order to allow immigration officials to expel migrants who were seeking asylum from the country while their applications were processed. The Biden administration has sought to end the policy despite objections from those who say it will result in a further surge of illegal crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border.

While the policy was scheduled to end on Wednesday, the order from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts Monday temporarily extended it until a response can be filed Tuesday.

More than a dozen Republican states filed the lawsuit to keep Title 42 in place, including Texas, whose governor responded to the ruling on social media.

"U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts has HALTED the lifting of Title 42 for now. Texas and other states are insisting that the Court leave Title 42 in place," tweeted Republican Gov. Greg Abbott.

"Today's order is a step in that direction. This helps prevent illegal immigration," he added.

The policy was struck down in November in a ruling from District Judge Emmet Sullivan in Washington, D.C., who called it an “arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.”

Illegal immigrant advocates excoriated Title 42 and accused former President Donald Trump of being motivated by racism against immigrants. Supporters of the policy have argued that it was needed in order to stem the tide of illegal aliens streaming across the border and seeking asylum.

A poll in May found that 65% of Hispanics supported a temporary closure of the U.S.-Mexico border so that illegal crossings could be prevented. That was 9% greater than the number among all voters who supported the same.

Here's more about the controversial policy:

US braces for surge in migrants with Title 42 set to expire | ABCNLwww.youtube.com

Judge strikes down Trump-era Title 42 policy keeping asylum seekers in Mexico, border patrol expects massive surge



A federal judge struck down implementation of the Title 42 policy instituted under the Trump administration, and Border Patrol agents reportedly said they expect a massive surge of new migrants at the border.

Title 42 was also called the "remain in Mexico" policy because the emergency pandemic measure forced migrants seeking asylum to wait for their paperwork to be processed from across the border in Mexico. Prior to the ruling, they would be allowed to enter the U.S. and await a ruling from officials on whether their asylum claims were valid.

On Tuesday, District Judge Emmet Sullivan in Washington, D.C., wrote that the Title 42 order is “arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.”

Critics of the policy have called it inhumane and contrary to global humanitarian agreements the U.S. has made in the past.

Sullivan scolded the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for not allowing for alternative methods of avoiding the spread of the coronavirus pandemic, the rationale behind the Title 42 policy.

“With regard to whether defendants could have ‘ramped up vaccinations, outdoor processing, and all other available public health measures,’ … the court finds the CDC failed to articulate a satisfactory explanation for why such measures were not feasible,” Sullivan wrote.

Democrats predictably praised the order, despite the negative effect it's likely to have on border security.

"Asylum is a human right," tweeted Rep. Chuy Garcia (D-Ill.).

"Title 42 was a cruel, inhumane policy," he added. "As I applaud this decision, I think of the more than two million migrants who were turned away at the border because of this policy."

"A federal judge voided Title 42, the policy that has allowed border officials to quickly expel many migrants without regard to their asylum claims. This is a major step in the right direction," tweeted the official account for a migrant rights organization, the National Immigration Forum.

"BIG VICTORY against Title 42! Now, the Biden administration will have to admit asylum seekers into the United States!" tweeted United We Dream.

The Biden administration faced steep criticism from many on the left for using Title 42 in order to keep many asylum seekers from Venezuela out of the country as their applications were processed.

Here's more about Biden using Title 42:

Venezuelans Seeking Asylum Are Now Turned Away at U.S. Border as Biden Expands Trump-Era Title 42www.youtube.com

Biden administration moves to end 'Remain in Mexico' policy after Supreme Court approval



While the FBI raid of Donald Trump's residence at Mar-a-Lago dominated news headlines Monday, the Department of Homeland Security quietly announced it will end the Trump-era "Remain in Mexico" policy and permit thousands of migrants to enter the country at the southern border.

The decision comes after a federal district court lifted an injunction blocking the Biden administration from ending the policy, officially known as Migrant Protection Protocols.

On June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the Biden administration had the legal authority to terminate the program. President Joe Biden had campaigned against Migrant Protection Protocols in 2020, arguing it was inhumane, like other Trump immigration policies he has repealed.

Under former President Donald Trump, the DHS required migrants seeking asylum in the U.S. to wait in Mexico for their immigration hearings. This policy was meant to address the widespread problem of migrants coming to the U.S. and disappearing within the country when they are supposed to show up in court. About 70,000 migrants were made to wait in Mexico under the Trump administration.

"As Secretary Mayorkas has said, MPP has endemic flaws, imposes unjustifiable human costs, and pulls resources and personnel away from other priority efforts to secure our border," the DHS said in a statement.

DHS officials said migrants are no longer being enrolled in MPP and individuals currently waiting in Mexico for their asylum claims to be processed will be disenrolled when they return to the U.S. for their court dates.

Biden first tried to repeal MPP in June of last year, arguing the policy was ineffective and inhumane. Immigration activists who strongly opposed the policy reported that migrants waiting in Mexican border cities had been victims of violent assaults, kidnappings, and other crimes. But U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk blocked the DHS from repealing "Remain in Mexico" after Republican-led state officials sued claiming federal law required migrants arriving in the U.S. on land from a contiguous territory to be detained and removed.

The Supreme Court disagreed. The majority ruled that Congress has given the executive branch discretion to remove foreign asylum seekers, but that it was not required to do so.

DHS officials said the Biden administration continues to enforce the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Title 42 public health order, which requires asylum seekers to wait outside the U.S. and gives immigration officials power to expedite deportations.

"Individuals encountered at the Southwest Border who cannot establish a legal basis to remain in the United States will be removed or expelled," the DHS said.

Supreme Court hands Biden a win, clears way for repeal of Trump's 'Remain in Mexico' policy



President Joe Biden won a victory at the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday after the court said he may repeal the Trump administration's "Remain in Mexico" immigration policy.

Under former President Donald Trump, the Department of Homeland Security required migrants seeking asylum in the U.S. to wait in Mexico for their immigration hearings. This policy, known as Migrant Protection Protocols, was meant to address the widespread problem of migrants coming to the U.S. and disappearing within the country when they are supposed to show up in court. About 70,000 migrants were made to wait in Mexico under the Trump administration.

Immigration activists opposed the "Remain in Mexico" policy, accusing it of being inhumane, and Biden sought to repeal it last year as part of his larger effort to reverse his predecessor's immigration policies. But a lower court blocked the administration from doing so.

The question before the Supreme Court was whether repealing the policy would violate federal law that requires migrants to be detained for immigration proceedings and, if that migrant arrives on land from a contiguous territory, gives immigration enforcement the option of removing those migrants.

The relevant statute says that any person applying for admission to the U.S. "shall be detained for a proceeding" unless they are "clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted." If the migrant came to the U.S. by land from a contiguous territory (Mexico or Canada), then "the Attorney General may return the alien to that territory" while they await their proceeding.

In a 5-4 decision, the court held that repealing Trump's Migrant Protection Protocols did not violate the law.

"If Congress had intended section 1225(b)(2)(C) to operate as a mandatory cure of any noncompliance with the Government's detention obligations, it would not have conveyed that intention through an unspoken inference in conflict with the unambiguous, express term 'may.' It would surely instead have coupled that grant of discretion with some indication of its sometimes-mandatory nature — perhaps by providing that the Secretary 'may return' certain aliens to Mexico, 'unless the government fails to comply with its detention obligations, in which case the Secretary must return them,'" Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.

"The statutory grant of discretion here contains no such caveat, and we will not rewrite it to include one," Roberts declared.

Roberts was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, and Sonia Sotomayor.

Justice Samuel Alito dissented and was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. He argued that the government does not have the authority to release migrants into the U.S. if it appears that they are not admissible under the law.

"In fiscal year 2021, the Border Patrol reported more than 1.7 million encounters with aliens along the Mexican border. When it appears that one of these aliens is not admissible, may the Government simply release the alien in this country and hope that the alien will show up for the hearing at which his or her entitlement to remain will be decided?" Alito wrote.

"Congress has provided a clear answer to that question, and the answer is no," he asserted, citing federal law that says an alien "shall be detained" for deportation if they have no legal right to enter the U.S.

Pointing out that the DHS "does not have the capacity to detain all inadmissible aliens encountered at the border," Alito said that the Biden administration's decision to release migrants into the U.S. ignores the solution federal law provides of having those migrants remain in Mexico.

"Rather than avail itself of Congress’s clear statutory alternative to return inadmissible aliens to Mexico while they await proceedings in this country, DHS has concluded that it may forgo that option altogether and instead simply release into this country untold numbers of aliens who are very likely to be removed if they show up for their removal hearings," Alito wrote.

"This practice violates the clear terms of the law, but the Court looks the other way," he said.

DHS expects up to 18,000 illegal immigrants a day once Title 42 is lifted



As many as 18,000 migrants could illegally cross the southern border per day once the Trump-era Title 42 regulation is repealed by the Biden administration.

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas acknowledged that lifting the regulation will increase strain on federal offices that are already stretched thin in their pursuit to contain the ongoing immigration crisis at the country’s southern border, but the New York Post reported he still intends to move forward with Title 42’s repeal.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) instituted Title 42 during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. It grants border officials the ability to immediately expel migrants trying to illegally enter the U.S. through its shared southern border with Mexico.

While on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Mayorkas said, “Title 42 is a public health authority. So, what we started to do in September of last year was to prepare for its end.”

“We’re not projecting 18,000, but what we do in the department is we plan for different scenarios,” Mayorkas continued. “So, we’re ready for anything.”

When the show’s host, Dana Bash, pressed Mayorkas on whether the Department of Homeland Security would be able to handle an influx of migrants that size, he said the department would be prepared, but the system would be put under “extraordinary strain.”

Mayorkas said, “It is our responsibility to be prepared for different scenarios, and that is what we are doing, and we have incredibly talented and dedicated people. There is no question if in fact we reach that number, that is going to be an extraordinary strain on our system.”

He continued, “That is why the plan we have prepared calls for a number of different actions, not just the domestic arena but also with our partners in the south.”

This past month, in a move that garnered bipartisan criticism, the CDC announced that it would allow Title 42 to expire in late May.

In March 2022, there were more than 220,000 encounters between illegal immigrants and border officials. This is the highest number of any month since the start of Joe Biden’s presidency.

In response to this, lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives took Mayorkas to task over the Biden administration’s inability to end the seemingly perpetual influx of illegal immigrants.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) grilled Mayorkas, telling him that by allowing Title 42 to be repealed he was “going to make it worse.”

Jordan said, “We have a secretary of Homeland Security who is intentionally, deliberately, in a premeditated fashion … executing a plan to overwhelm our country with millions and millions of illegal migrants.”

5th Circuit sharply rebukes Biden administration for illegally ending 'Remain in Mexico' policy



The Biden administration has suffered yet another legal defeat in its bid to end the Trump-era "Remain in Mexico" immigration policy, this time in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

A panel of federal judges on Monday upheld a lower court decision that found the Department of Homeland Security unlawfully terminated the Migrant Protection Protocols created by the Trump administration, dubbed the "Remain in Mexico" policy for asylum seekers.

NEW: The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals denies the Biden administration\u2019s appeal of a judge\u2019s order that required the restart of the \u201cRemain in Mexico\u201d policy. \n\nThe ruling is quite\u2026direct. \n\nH/t @ZoeTillmanpic.twitter.com/kfHVIx2w1y
— Hamed Aleaziz (@Hamed Aleaziz) 1639451921

First implemented in 2019 under President Donald Trump, Migrant Protection Protocols require migrants seeking asylum in the U.S. to wait in Mexico for their U.S. court hearings. The policy was intended to reduce instances of "catch and release" — when asylum seekers gain entry into the U.S. and then disappear before their court hearings to dodge the possibility of deportation.

As a presidential candidate, Joe Biden described the policy as inhumane because of the dangers migrants may face while waiting in Mexico. Reversing Migrant Protection Protocols, along with several more Trump immigration policies, was among Biden's first acts as president.

However, a federal court ruled in October that Biden improperly ended the policy and ordered the DHS to restart the program. Monday's ruling by a panel of three Republican-appointed judges affirmed that lower court decision after the Biden administration asked the Fifth Circuit to end the lower court's order. The court rejected an argument from the DHS that the case is moot and that courts cannot review the administration's actions.

"DHS’s proposed approach is as unlawful as it is illogical," Judge Andrew Oldham wrote.

"DHS claims the power to implement a massive policy reversal — affecting billions of dollars and countless people — simply by typing out a new Word document and posting it on the internet. No input from Congress, no ordinary rulemaking procedures, and no judicial review," he said.

"We address and reject each of the Government’s reviewability arguments and determine that DHS has come nowhere close to shouldering its heavy burden to show that it can make law in a vacuum," he added.

Oldham made a point of sharply rebuking the government for skirting the administrative procedures enacted by Congress that the executive branch must follow to create or terminate policy.

"The Government's position in this case has far-reaching implications for the separation of powers and the rule of law. The government says it has unreviewable and unilateral discretion to create and eliminate entire components of the federal bureaucracy that affect countless people, tax dollars, and sovereign States. The Government also says it has unreviewable and unilateral discretion to ignore statutory limits imposed by Congress and to remake entire titles of the United States Code to suit the preferences of the executive branch. And the Government says it can do all of this by typing up a new 'memo' and posting it on the internet," Oldham wrote.

"If the Government were correct, it would supplant the rule of law with the rule of say-so. We hold the Government is wrong."

Under the ruling, DHS must continue the Remain in Mexico policy, though the Biden administration will likely appeal to the Supreme Court next.

EXCLUSIVE: Rep. Biggs Demands Biden Admin ‘Immediately’ Restart Migrant Protection Protocols

'How much longer will President Biden prolong the open border crisis?'