Border chaos amid Title 42 uncertainty 3:06
The Biden administration told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that its plan to let the coronavirus public health emergency expire in May will affect the ongoing debate over the Trump-era border restriction known as Title 42.
The benefits that will disappear when Biden ends the national covid-19 and public health emergency in May
“In the absence of other relevant developments, the end of the public health emergency (among other consequences) will end the Title 42 orders and affect this case.
The Government also recently announced its intent to adopt new Title 8 policies to address the situation at the border once the Title 42 orders are terminated,” Attorney General Elizabeth Prelogar wrote in a document filed with the high court.
The Trump administration invoked Title 42 at the start of the coronavirus pandemic.
This public health measure allows officials to turn away migrants at the US-Mexico border on the grounds of the coronavirus pandemic.
Title 42 has been the subject of ongoing litigation amid efforts to end it.
Last year, the Republican-led states, which had already sued in a different court, asked to intervene in one case, arguing that the program should be upheld.
The Supreme Court agreed to leave the program final, saying it would hear arguments on March 1 on whether GOP-led states can intervene.
The government's brief was filed before those scheduled arguments, which could be affected.
Migrants in El Paso face uncertainty after Supreme Court left Title 42 in effect amid legal challenges
“The anticipated end of the public health emergency on May 11, and the resulting expiration of the Title 42 operating order, would render this case void: because the Title 42 order would have 'expired on its own terms' ', this lawsuit that only seeks future relief "would no longer present an 'actual case or controversy,'" the document states.
"In that case, the Government will ask the appeals court to set aside the district court's ruling and send it back with instructions to dismiss the private defendants' claim as moot," it continues.