On Monday, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. issued an order that temporarily maintained a public health emergency provision that was implemented under the Trump administration. This policy gives the government the authority to remove asylum-seeking migrants who enter the southern border illegally.
The provisional order issued by the chief justice, which is referred to as an administrative stay, was made with the intention of providing the Supreme Court with additional time to consider the question of whether or not to continue the programme, Title 42, which a trial judge had ordered to be terminated by Wednesday. In the following days, it is expected that the court will make a decision.
An emergency application was submitted on Monday by 19 states, headed by Republicans, and this triggered the order to be issued. The attorneys for the states requested the justices to give an emergency stay of the order that a federal court had issued to stop the programme, arguing that it was necessary to do so in order to avoid an increase in the number of people crossing the border.
In their letter, they said that “the refusal to grant a stay would generate a catastrophe of historic proportions at the border.” They went on to say that “daily unlawful crossings may more than quadruple” if the stay was not granted.
The decision was made by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the Federal District Court in Washington last month. He determined that the regulation, which was enforced by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, did very little to enhance public health and did much to risk immigration.
He set the cutoff date for the programme for Wednesday at midnight, unless a higher court issues a stay before then.
On Friday, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia unanimously denied the states’ request for a stay of execution, stating that the states had waited too long to try to intervene in the case, which had been brought by migrant families seeking to end expulsions under the health measure. The case had been brought by migrant families seeking to end expulsions under the health measure.
According to the attorneys representing the immigrants, the health measure does not warrant obstructing the capacity of persons who are fleeing violence to petition for asylum. The states that are run by Republicans have replied by saying that without the safeguards, border states would be forced to deal with an overwhelming flood of migrants. They have also said that the case has consequences for a wider range of issues.
“This case presents an opportunity for this court to address the district court’s misguided attempt to constrain the C.D.C.’s authority to use Title 42 to “The consequences are not limited to the present dispute: The district court’s ruling will make it more difficult for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to take emergency action in the future to prevent foreign nationals infected with communicable diseases from entering the United States.”
An attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union named Lee Gelernt, who represents migrants who are contesting the policy, was scathing of the proposal that the states submitted.
Since the Trump administration began using the measure at the beginning of 2020, when they claimed it was necessary to combat the coronavirus epidemic, it has been used in more than 2.3 million expulsions. The programme was said to have the ulterior motive of reducing immigration, according to critics.
In their emergency application, the states said that they were in danger of suffering damage that could not be repaired if the justices did not intervene. The attorneys for the states noted in their brief that “in particular,” “the considerably higher number of migrants that would arise from this termination will obviously raise the expenditures that are incurred by the states for law enforcement, education, and health care.” They went on to say that “there has already been a rush of migrants approaching the border in preparation of the Dec. 21 stay expiry, highlighting the damages that the states are experiencing.”
The attorneys for the states had submitted a request to the Supreme Court requesting that the court take urgent action to preserve the status quo while the justices deliberated on the subject. In their letter, they said, “Given that the termination of Title 42 is now due to take effect at 12:01 a.m. on Wednesday, December 21,” and continued, “the states respectfully urge an immediate administrative stay pending consideration of this stay request.”
Chief Justice John Roberts issued a summons for a response to the emergency application submitted by the states by Tuesday at 5:00 p.m., indicating that the court may give a decision in a short amount of time.
