The ruling is just the latest case of a court derailing the president’s proposed immigration policies along the US-Mexico border.
While management may appeal, the decision sharply increases the chances that the restrictions will not end as scheduled on Monday. A delay would be a blow to supporters who say asylum rights are being violated and a relief to some Democrats who fear a widely expected increase in illegal crossings would put them in defense in an already difficult midterm election year.
Immigrants have been deported more than 1.9 million times since March 2020, according to Title 42, a public health provision that denies them the opportunity to seek asylum under U.S. law and the International Convention on Prevention. of the spread of COVID-19.
U.S. District Judge Robert Summerhays in Lafayette, Louisiana has ordered that the restrictions remain in place, while an Arizona and Louisiana lawsuit – and now joined by 22 other states – is pending in court.
The states argued that the administration had failed to adequately address the implications of lifting the restrictions on public health and law enforcement. Drew Ensign, an Arizona state attorney, argued at a hearing that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had failed to follow administrative procedures that required public notice and time for public comment.
Jean Lin, a Justice Department lawyer, told the judge that the CDC had the power to lift an emergency health restriction that it deemed unnecessary. He said the mandate was a matter of health policy, not immigration.
Summerhays, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, had already ruled in favor of the states by halting efforts to end the pandemic rule. He said last month that the phasing out would cost states “irreparable costs for health care, law enforcement, detention, education and other services.”
Title 42 is the second major Trump-era policy to block asylum on the Mexican border, which was withdrawn by President Joe Biden to revive only one judge appointed by Trump.
Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments about whether it would allow the administration to force asylum seekers to wait in Mexico for hearings in the U.S. Immigration Tribunal. This case, challenging a policy known as “Stay in Mexico,” began in Amarillo, Texas. It was restored in December by order of the judge and remains in force as long as the trial continues.
The displayed video is from a previous report
Copyright © 2022 by the Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Louisiana federal judge refusing to end COVID-19 pandemic restrictions on migrants seeking asylum in US Source link Louisiana federal judge refusing to end COVID-19 pandemic restrictions on migrants seeking asylum in US