{"id":70616,"date":"2022-12-21T02:16:04","date_gmt":"2022-12-21T02:16:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cryptospotters.net\/?p=70616"},"modified":"2022-12-21T02:16:04","modified_gmt":"2022-12-21T02:16:04","slug":"biden-administration-wants-supreme-court-to-end-title-42-just-not-yet","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/cryptospotters.net\/?p=70616","title":{"rendered":"Biden administration wants Supreme Court to end Title 42 \u2014 just not yet"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Source: Politics<\/p>\n<p>The Biden administration said it could no longer wind down the so-called Title 42 policy by Wednesday, even if the Supreme Court allowed it to follow through on a lower court\u2019s ruling to effectively terminate the border directive that has prevented the entry of millions of migrants.<\/p>\n<p>The <a href=\"https:\/\/www.documentcloud.org\/documents\/23474368-22a544-govt-opp-to-ariz-stay-final-corrected\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">response on Tuesday from the Department of Justice<\/a> comes a day after Chief Justice John Roberts <a href=\"https:\/\/www.politico.com\/news\/2022\/12\/19\/republican-states-supreme-court-title-42-00074609\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">issued a temporary stay<\/a>of a federal district court judge\u2019s order that required the Biden administration to lift the implementation of Title 42 by Wednesday morning.<\/p>\n<p>Roberts\u2019 order came in response to an emergency application filed by 19 Republican-led states to keep in place the Title 42 policy, a federal directive that has allowed border officials to \u201cexpel\u201d millions of asylum-seeking migrants on public health grounds during both the Trump and Biden administrations. Roberts gave the Justice Department until Tuesday evening to respond while the high court decides whether to fulfill the states\u2019 request for longer-term relief.<\/p>\n<p>In its response, the Justice Department said it opposed the bid by the GOP-led states to keep the Title 42 limits in place while litigation over the issue proceeded. But at the same time, the federal government made a plea for additional time to prepare for a transition. The request comes as critics have been warning that the Biden administration was ill-prepared to handle an anticipated surge of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThe government recognizes that the end of the Title 42 orders will likely lead to disruption and a temporary increase in unlawful border crossings. The government in no way seeks to minimize the seriousness of that problem,\u201d Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar wrote in the Tuesday afternoon submission. \u201cBut the solution to that immigration problem cannot be to extend indefinitely a public-health measure that all now acknowledge has outlived its public-health justification.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Already, thousands of migrants appeared to have gathered along the southern border, knowing border officials will not be able to remove them as quickly as they could under the Title 42 restrictions first imposed by the Trump administration in March 2020 as the coronavirus began its global spread.<\/p>\n<p>This week\u2019s legal uncertainty over the fate of the border directive is yet another chapter in the Biden administration\u2019s rocky journey in bringing to an end Trump-era immigration policies. Even as administration officials project preparedness, the situation at the southern border has become a political mess for the White House, and the request for additional time is yet another signal the administration is scrambling to implement a back-up plan to replace Title 42.<\/p>\n<p>In Tuesday\u2019s Supreme Court filing, the Justice Department conceded that the administration expected a temporary increase in border crossings, while asking that justices keep Title 42 in place at least until the end of the day on Dec. 27. And if the Supreme Court doesn\u2019t reach a decision until Dec. 23 or later, the administration is asking for two business days to implement new policies.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.politico.com\/news\/2022\/12\/16\/biden-administration-immigration-border-00074395\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Administration officials are still finalizing plans<\/a> to deal with the impending surge, people familiar with the planning told POLITICO last week. DHS is weighing a revival of a \u201ctransit ban\u201d model, ramping up new training for asylum officers to help them understand who qualifies under the international Convention Against Torture and considering an expansion of humanitarian parole programs for Haitians, Nicaraguans and Cubans.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cAlthough the end of the Title 42 orders likely will likely lead to a temporary increase in border crossings, the government is prepared to address that serious problem under its Title 8 authorities, including by adopting new policies to respond to the temporary disruption that will occur whenever the Title 42 orders end,\u201d Prelogar said, alluding to the traditional immigration authorities the administration was expected to return to in handling \u2014 and limiting \u2014 asylum claims.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIf applicants are dissatisfied with the immigration system Congress has prescribed in Title 8, their remedy is to ask Congress to change the law \u2014 not to ask this Court to compel the government to continue relying on an extraordinary and now obsolete public-health measure as de facto immigration policy,\u201d the solicitor general wrote.<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court is expected to move quickly on the matter. A ruling that could have sweeping impacts at the border is likely to come within a matter of days.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.politico.com\/news\/2022\/12\/20\/biden-administration-wants-supreme-court-to-end-title-42-just-not-yet-00074895\" target=\"_blank\" class=\"feedzy-rss-link-icon\" rel=\"noopener\">Read More<\/a><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Source: Politics The Biden administration said it could no longer wind down the so-called Title 42 policy by Wednesday, even if the Supreme Court allowed it to follow through on&hellip; <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":70617,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[6],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/cryptospotters.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70616"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/cryptospotters.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/cryptospotters.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/cryptospotters.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=70616"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/cryptospotters.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70616\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/cryptospotters.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/70617"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/cryptospotters.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=70616"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/cryptospotters.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=70616"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/cryptospotters.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=70616"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}