Federal Judge explains why he’s Blocking Biden’s Termination of Title 42
WASHINGTON, D.C. (Texas Insider Report) — “Our Office just obtained a temporary restraining order to keep Title 42 in place,” tweeted Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt on Monday. "This is a huge victory for border security, but the fight continues on."
President Joe Biden's decision to end the Title 42 authority – named for a 1944 Public Health Law that enables quick expulsion of illegal immigrants due to health or medical concerns – is being legally challenged by 22 states and is spawning an increasingly fearce level of division within President Biden’s own Democrat Party.
Congressman Henry Cuellar, a Texas border Democrat, said last week that Biden is hurting the Democrat Party nationally by insisting on ending Title 42.
“This is not good for Democrats in November. You know, in talking with some of my Republican colleagues, they’re saying,
‘We can’t believe the White House is giving us this narrative. We can’t believe that they’re hurting Democrat candidates for the November election,’” Cuellar told Fox News last Thursday. “And look at the polls – Republican voters are not happy by what’s happening at the border, Democratic voters are not happy.
"And if you look at the independent voters – they’re not happy about this decision.
"So who are we trying to please?” asked Cuellar.
Cuellar has never shied away from criticizing the president’s immigration policies – something most Democrats have avoided doing, until now.
The Restraining Order prevents any action from taking place before a hearing that is scheduled for Friday, May 13th on the case – and according to a transcript of a closed-door status conference on the state's lawsuit, the judge issuing the Restraining Order is blocking Biden’s attempt to terminate Title 42 because he believes the states suing the Biden administration are poised to succeed in their claims that the move violated Federal Law,
U.S. District Judge Robert Summerhays announced his intent on April 25th to enter a temporary restraining order that forces the administration to keep enforcing Title 42.
In a hearing that day, Summerhays said the plaintiff states – which includes Missouri and Louisiana – have demonstrated that the federal government likely violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) with its April 1st announcement that the emergency order would be terminated in May, according to the transcript.
“I also find that the record supports a showing of immediate and irreparable harm. The states contend that the termination of the Title 42 suspension orders will result in increased costs and burdens, including increased healthcare costs.
"The Court concludes that the record supports these allegations, and that the fact of those increased costs is sufficient to support injunctive relief,” Summerhays said.
“The Court also finds, as far as the balance of harms, that a temporary restraining order restoring the status quo to immediately prior to the April 1st order will result in little injury to the defendants, and that any such injury is outweighed by the injury caused by a result of the implementation of the April 1st order without the states having an opportunity to fully vet their APA claims, and that a temporary restraining order will not disserve the public interest.”
"The Court concludes that the record supports these allegations, and that the fact of those increased costs is sufficient to support injunctive relief,” Summerhays said.
“The Court also finds, as far as the balance of harms, that a temporary restraining order restoring the status quo to immediately prior to the April 1st order will result in little injury to the defendants, and that any such injury is outweighed by the injury caused by a result of the implementation of the April 1st order without the states having an opportunity to fully vet their APA claims, and that a temporary restraining order will not disserve the public interest.”
The states argued in their filings that the Biden administration would not suffer any harm from a block on beginning to scale back the order, since the administration itself delayed the termination until May 23rd.The government said in a counter-filing that it was ramping expulsion under Title 8, a federal law, in preparation for Title 42 officially ending, and urged the court not to grant the request for a restraining order.
“The purpose of delaying implementation of the Termination Order is to allow time for DHS to operationalize before May 23,” government lawyers said in a brief. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) “cannot simply flip a switch on May 23.”
While Summerhays said he’d enter the restraining order, he has not yet done so due to his taking issue with some of the language proposed by the states – most likely to ensure the order doesn’t interfere with the “legitimate use of law enforcement discretion” afforded to immigration enforcement officials.
Summerhays said that he wanted the order to “in the least disruptive way” address the states’ concerns.
Summerhays directed the parties to confer and try to reach an agreement on certain issues. and if they cannot, he said they’ll hold another status conference to hammer out the differences.
It remains unclear when the actual order will be issued.
The Department of Justice declined to comment on the judge’s decision, but a senior administration official has reportedly told news outlets that the administration will obey the order once it’s issued.
In addition to Cong. Cuellar, a growing list of close to two dozen Democrats – including Senators Mark Kelly (AZ,) Maggie Hassan (NH,) Chris Coons (DE,) and Gary Peters (MI) – have come out and publically asked Mr. Biden to reconsider rescinding Title 42.
