The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled to maintain a controversial Trump-era program that prevented thousands of individuals from crossing the US-Mexico border.
The government has the authority to automatically remove unauthorized migrants seeking entrance under Title 42.
It was feared that the number of migrants at the border would increase if the policy were to be lifted.
The Biden administration stated that it will abide by the verdict, but advocated for immigration policy reform.
Statement: “We are continuing our plans to handle the border in a secure, orderly, and humane manner when Title 42 is eventually lifted, and we will continue to expand legal channels for immigration.”
Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy, a Republican, stated that deleting Title 42 “would have exacerbated our border issue, and the White House looked eager to let that happen.”
“Glad to see the Supreme Court intervene to preserve it, but we require a lasting solution,” he tweeted.
Miguel Colmenares, a Venezuelan immigrant in the Mexican border city of Tijuana, lamented, “It crushes my heart that we must continue to wait.
The 27-year-old man told the Reuters news agency, “I don’t know what I’m going to do, I have no money, and my family is waiting for me.”
The Title 42 policy, which has been utilized around 2.5 million times since March 2020, was scheduled to expire on 21 December, but Chief Supreme Court Justice John Roberts halted its expiration two days beforehand.
The court’s decision was in response to an emergency petition by some Republican-led states requesting that the program be maintained.
Tuesday, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to prolong the temporary restraining order issued by Chief Justice Roberts pending the outcome of the lawsuit.
In addition, the nine Supreme Court justices will hear oral arguments regarding whether or not the states can intervene to defend the policy.
Disputes are anticipated to occur in February or March of 2023. The deadline for a decision is the end of June.
The judgment will be a setback for immigration activists, who had argued that Title 42 violated international responsibilities to grant refuge.
However, proponents of Title 42 and officials in numerous border communities said that relaxing the regulation would increase border crossings, putting a burden on available services.
In court documents filed last week, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar acknowledged that the elimination of Title 42 orders would likely result in “disruption and a temporary surge in illegal border crossings.”
She continued, “The administration does not attempt to diminish the gravity of this issue.” “However, the solution to this immigration issue cannot be an indefinite extension of a public-health measure that has outlived its public-health basis,”
Local governments and humanitarian organizations along the border have warned that they are already overcrowded and unprepared for an inflow of new asylum seekers.
As part of a larger strategy to deal with the increasing number of asylum seekers on the city’s streets, authorities in El Paso, Texas, declared a state of emergency and set up a makeshift shelter with 1,000 beds in the city’s convention center last week.
Last week, local officials expressed concern that they would be unable to accommodate a large increase in the number of people in need of food, shelter, and assistance organizing transportation to other parts of the United States.
Susan Goodell, the CEO of the El Pasoans Fighting Hunger Foodbank, stated that local non-governmental organizations had been warned to anticipate “further surges” if Title 42 was repealed.
