WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has indefinitely maintained restrictions on pandemic-era immigration, dashing the hopes of immigration advocates. anticipate their end this week.
In Tuesday’s ruling, the Supreme Court extended a temporary stay issued last week by Chief Justice John Roberts. By order of the court, the case will be discussed in February, and the stay will be maintained until a judge decides the case.
The restrictions were introduced under then-President Donald Trump early in the pandemic. Under regulations, officials have deported asylum seekers in the United States 2.5 million times and turned down most who applied for asylum at the border on the grounds of preventing the spread of COVID-19. This limit is often referred to as Title 42, in reference to the Public Health Act of 1944.
Immigration advocates have called for the policy to end, saying it violates U.S. and international obligations to those fleeing persecution to the United States. They also argue that the policy is outdated due to improved treatments for the coronavirus.
“We are deeply disappointed with all the desperate asylum seekers who continue to suffer because of Title 42, but we will continue to fight to finally end this policy.” Terminate use of Title 42.
A federal judge upheld supporters in November, Set a deadline for December 21st Exit the policy. Conservative states have appealed to the Supreme Court, warning that the increase in immigration would hurt public services and create an “unprecedented disaster” that the federal government said it had no plans to address.
Roberts, who handles urgent cases from federal courts in the capital, issued a stay to give the court time to more fully consider both sides’ claims.
The federal government asked the Supreme Court to overrule the states’ efforts, but also acknowledged that abruptly ending the restrictions could lead to “a temporary increase in chaos and illegal border crossings.”
The Supreme Court decision reads as follows Thousands of immigrants gathered On the Mexican side of the border, shelters are filling up and worried defenders are struggling to find a way to care for them.
The precise question at issue in court is a complex and largely procedural question of whether states should be allowed to intervene in litigation. A similar state group won a lower court order blocking the end of restrictions in another court district after the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced it would end its use of the policy in April.
The state had not sought to participate in the case until a judge issued an order in the proponent’s case in November. But they say the administration has basically abandoned its defense of Title 42 policies and should be able to intervene.
Spagat contributed from San Diego.