A federal judge in another case found that the Biden administration had wrongly exempted unaccompanied minors from the restrictions. He ordered them to be subject to them within a week and allowed time for an emergency appeal.
These conflicting decisions have created legal uncertainty in the future of rules that deny migrants asylum due to COVID-19 spreading.
Since March 2020, the U.S. authorities expelled more than 1.6million migrants at the Mexican border. They have not allowed them to apply for humanitarian protections. Title 42 authority has been extended by the Biden administration, named after a 1944 law on public health.
The U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia stated COVID-19 concerns could prevent migrant families getting asylum to stay in the United States.
Judges said that migrants could seek humanitarian protection to avoid being sent home if they were likely to be tortured and persecuted. If their homelands are too unsafe, migrants can be sent to safe countries under the benefit of “withholding removal” or the United Nations Convention Against Torture.
Three judges, two of them appointed by President Barack Obama, and one from President Donald Trump, questioned the use of Title 42 by the Biden administration.
Trump appointee Judge Justin Walker wrote the unanimous ruling. He noted that health concerns had changed significantly since the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued the asylum restrictions two-years ago. He stated that it was not clear that the CDC order is serving any purpose in protecting public health.
He wrote that the CDC’s order “looks in some respects like a relic of an era without vaccines, scarce testing and few therapeutics, with little certainty.”
Walker pointed out that the Biden administration had not provided any evidence to support the restrictions.
“We don’t take COVID-19 at face value. We would also be sensitive to any declarations made by CDC officials confirming the effectiveness of the Order. He wrote that there were none.
In the other ruling U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman was a Trump appointee and sided with Texas. He argued that President Joe Biden had wrongly broken with Trump by exempting children travelling alone for humanitarian reasons. He observed an increase in the number of unaccompanied children crossing the border since the change.
Pittman, who lives in Fort Worth, Texas said that it was beyond comprehension that the case was being considered. Pittman stated that “there should not be any disagreement that current immigration policies should focus on stopping the spread COVID-19.”
The Justice Department did not comment on either ruling.
The Washington, D.C. appeals court ruling was a partial win for immigration advocates.
“Today’s decision does not invalidate Title 42. However, it provides legal and procedural safeguards that protect immigrants. Ivan EspinozaMadrigal is the executive director of Lawyers for Civil Rights.
Lee Gelernt, American Civil Liberties Union’s appeals court advocate for asylum-seeking families, described the decision as “an enormous victory” and said that the Texas ruling was “wrong and places children in grave risk.”
The Texas ruling provided some comfort to advocates of restrictions on immigration.
“This is a historic victory, but there is still a long way to go before we can end the administration’s crusade against our sovereignty,” stated Stephen Miller, who was an architect of Trump’s immigration policies and is now president at American First Legal, a legal advocacy organization.
Mexico will accept migrants from Mexico, Guatemala and El Salvador who have been expelled under Title 42. Although the U.S. can expel migrants who are not from their country, it is often more complicated due to logistical and diplomatic issues as well as costs. Asylum-seekers from Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba have increased — all countries that have frosty relations to the United States.