The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Supreme Court Cancels Oral Argument in Title 42 "Public Health" Expulsion Case
The move makes it more likely that Title 42 expulsions of migrants will end in the near future.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court canceled previously scheduled oral arguments in Arizona v. Mayorkas, a case involving Title 42 "public health" expulsions of migrants at the southern border. The Court didn't give a reason for the cancellation, nor did it indicate whether the arguments are going to be rescheduled. But most likely, the justices called off the oral argument because they think the case will soon become moot, thanks to the Biden Administration's plan to terminate the Covid-19 national emergency by May 11. If so, the Court's termination of the argument might pave the way for Title 42 expulsions to end in the near future.
Title 42 expulsions were instituted by Donal Trump in March 2020, for the ostensible purpose of preventing the spread of Covid to the United States, and later continued by Biden. The current version of the Centers for Disease Control order authorizing expulsions says they are scheduled to end whenever the Covid state of emergency is lifted.
The issue before the Court only involves a motion for intervention in the case filed by a group of red states who claim the Biden Administration wasn't defending Title 42 aggressively enough. The justices were not planning to consider the underlying issue of whether Title 42 expulsions are legal. But if the intervention issue is moot, it is because the same thing is true of the case as a whole.
If that really is the view of the Court, then I would expect them to soon lift their stay of the district court injunction mandating an end to Title 42 expulsions. That would require the Biden Administration to terminate the policy even before May 11.
Even if the stay isn't lifted before May, the conclusion that the Arizona v. Mayorkas is moot also implies that the same thing is true of a separate case in which a district court in Texas ruled that it was illegal for the administration to terminate the policy without going through the notice and comment process required by the Administrative Procedure Act.
I discussed the status of the two Title 42 cases and interaction between them in greater detail here and here. As explained in those previous posts, if the Supreme Court lifts the stay of the injunction against Title 42 expulsions, that one will likely take precedence over the one blocking the Administration's attempt to end the policy.
It's theoretically possible that Supreme Court just plans to reschedule the oral argument for a later date. It's also possible that the two Title 42 cases will not become moot for reasons I summarized in my last post on this topic:
The cases won't become moot until May 11. It would be unusual for the Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit (which is handling the ruling against the effort to end expulsions) to complete all their deliberations so quickly. But they could potentially do so. The courts might also find technical reasons to conclude that one or both of these cases remain live controversies….
In addition, the Administration could potentially decide to extend the Covid emergency again…. For a long time, Biden has been playing a kind of double game with Title 42 expulsions, simultaneously claiming to want to end them, yet also continuing to defend them in court and even expand their use. As with Trump before him, Biden's use of Title 42 expulsions has been guided far more by political considerations than scientific ones. It's possible that the Administration will reverse course again, if it sees some advantage in doing so.
Despite these caveats, I think the most likely scenario is that the cases will indeed become moot, and Title 42 expulsions will likely end by May 11, or perhaps even before that time. Yesterday's announcement makes that even more probable than before. Amng other things, the cancellation of the Arizona v. Mayorkas oral argument makes it even less likely that the Supreme Court will decide that case before May 11.
In my view, Title 42 expulsions were illegal from early on, once it became clear that Covid-19 was established in the United States. Trump and Biden deserve severe censure for continuing this illegal and extraordinarily harmful policy long past the point where it was clear it has no real public health benefits.
I would have preferred for the courts to simply rule the policy is illegal. But mooting out the cases involving the policy may be preferable to continuing the litigation for many more months, during which time expulsions might have continued.
We will likely soon have a more definitive resolution of the mootness question. But the cancellation of the oral argument is a strong indication that the Supreme Court is moving in the direction of embracing the Biden Administration's position that these cases are going to become moot by May 11.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
As long as Americans' lives can be made worse, I'm sure Democrats will strongly support the ruling, regardless of the reasoning courts ultimately use.
We need more workers, this is a stroke of luck.
Take Maine, which is on the Canadian border.
It is Constitutional to tell AMERICAN CITIZENS that they aren't allowed to enter the State of Maine, but not to tell illegal aliens the same thing?
It is unfortunate that the courts can not move quickly enough to decide such cases on the merits.
It's unfortunate that they're able to move slowly enough to avoid deciding such cases on the merits. I mean, it's not like they're trying to move fast enough.
Just like ending DACA. It took 3/4s of Trump's term. Intentionally.
I'm curious: Has any court anywhere ever agreed with your stance on the legality of public health restrictions on immigration?
That is quite a strawman you got there!
It's a "question".
Strawman is his word of the week.
It accurately characterizes well over half the comments here.
" strawman
1.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument."
Again, it was a "question". It didn't even characterize said stance, beyond noting the topic, so I don't see how it could qualify as a "strawman".
Well, I wasn't referring to your comment in particular. But I'll play. What exactly is Prof. Somin's stance on the legality of public health restrictions on immigration, that you are questioning? You seem to be implying that he is against all public health restrictions on immigration, which isn't an argument he has made about these Title 42 expulsions. Instead he is basing his position on the use of the word "introduction" in the statute. If Covid is already established in this country, immigrants with the disease aren't introducing it here.
What you seem to be implying is a straw man, misrepresenting Prof. Somin's argument.
Well, what I think his position is, is that outside of extraordinary circumstances, (Such as armies on the march during a declared war.) ALL limitations in immigration whatsoever are impermissible.
Because he's said as much, that the federal government lacks any constitutional power to regulate immigration. So that regulation of immigration has to be incidental to the exercise of an enumerated power, such as national defense. (Strangely, he doesn't seem to see the 10th amendment implications here.)
Now, the case for an implied power to regulate immigration is at least as strong as the case for an implied power to exclude plague carriers: Both are traditional attributes of sovereignty, and the power to regulate immigration at least has the migration or importation clause to hang a hat on, which is more than can be said about excluding plague carriers.
So, if he's going to deny that implied power to regulate immigration, if he were going to be consistent, he'd deny the power to exclude plague carriers, too.
So, bottom line: I think his focus here on a narrow textual quibble is entirely tactical.
But still, in the end, I merely asked if any court has agreed with him.
Ilya references a previous case in DC that argued the original title 42 order (in March of 2020) was illegitimate and illegal. It's actually a stunning piece of work, arguing that in the midst of a worldwide pandemic, where every country was closing its borders, the US didn't have the right to do title 42 to limit migrants from coming into the US.
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2021cv0100-165
To leftist globalists, the more destructive, unassimilable, and unproductive immigrants are, the better.
Did that ruling apply only to illegal immigrants or only to legal immigrants? As in, we won't give you permission to enter our country during the pandemic, but we won't stop you if you enter without permission.
1. A point of nomenclature: courts do not "argue" things. They hold things. (Or "rule" them.) Litigants argue things.
2. The court's ruling was based on statutory authority, not on what the US has the abstract "right" to do.
3. Prof. Somin's argument on this point has been that a statute that allows the borders to be closed to prevent a disease from being "introduced" into the country definitionally does apply when the disease is already prevalent in the country.
Tedious trolling wordplay, followed by an inaccurate description of what Title 42 actually says.
Yes, the First Circuit.
But that was on the movement of CITIZENS, not criminal aliens.
That is not his stance, Brett:
In my view, Title 42 expulsions were illegal from early on, once it became clear that Covid-19 was established in the United States.
It's not a question; it's a mischaracterization.
It's interesting to me how many on here can't just disagree with Prof. Somin, they need to invent a more extreme version to disagree with more easily.
You're making less sense than normal Sarcastro.
Here was Brett's question.
"Has any court anywhere ever agreed with your stance on the legality of public health restrictions on immigration?"
Hard to see how that's a "mischaracterization" of anything. It's a simple question.
Ever done any programming? If so, you'll be familiar with the concept of an "include" file; It's a block of code that's loaded by reference every time you compile.
Sarcastr0 has a rather massive "include file" that loads every time he reads somebody else's comment.
Did you even bother to read his question? It’s obvious that he understands Somin just fine. He just simply asking if a court has agreed with Somin’s interpretation of the law.
You have to be actively looking for an argument to avoid understanding that point.
If one of the two of you is strawmanning, it isn’t Brett.
I disagree. A fair inference from Brett's question is that Prof. Somin is against all public health restrictions on immigration. That is a straw man.
Let's repeat Brett's question, and ask again.
"I’m curious: Has any court anywhere ever agreed with your stance on the legality of public health restrictions on immigration?"
Now, somehow you get from this an inference that "Prof. Somin is against all public health restrictions on immigration"
I'm baffled how you get that inference. In Brett's question, there's no reference to Somin even being for or against ANY restrictions, let alone all. He just asks on Somin's stance.
Let's reword the question slightly:
Alpheus "I’m curious: Has any court anywhere ever agreed with your stance on the legality of speech restrictions?"
What do you "infer" that means? Does that automatically mean that you oppose all speech restrictions? Just some? Any?
No, there wasn't enough to the question to infer any such thing. It was a simple question: Have the courts ever agreed with him on this question?
Now, I think it would be fair to say that the Prof would so limit public heath restrictions on immigration as to effectively abolish them entirely, leaving them as at best a theoretical possibility. Because that's his general approach to ALL restrictions on immigration: He doesn't admit that the federal government has ANY constitutional power to restrict immigration to begin with, leaving the basis for the restriction irrelevant.
He's barely willing to admit that the federal government could stop a column of hostile soldiers from crossing the border during a declared war.
A direct quote from the Cato article of his you linked:
"Congress’ other powers do enable it to forbid some types of migration in some cases. For example, its authority to declare war, provide for the common defense, and define and punish offenses against international law, gives it the authority to forbid the movement of enemy soldiers, spies, terrorists, and pirates, among others."
So his argument does not "leave the basis for the restriction irrelevant." He clearly acknowledges that there are indeed constitutionally allowed reasons to restrict immigration. Perhaps this is why he did not make a constitutional argument in the case of the Title 42 restrictions. Instead he makes a statutory interpretation argument.
And by the way, the second and third paragraphs of your comment are straw men.
"He’s barely willing to admit that the federal government could stop a column of hostile soldiers from crossing the border during a declared war."
As I said, his position is, essentially, that since the federal government (according to him...) lacks any authority over immigration, any interference with immigration has to be incident to the exercise of a power that is actually delegated.
Of all the Covid restrictions, this was one of the few that had a basis in truth and logic*, so of course Somin is against it.
*Any reason for this policy to remain in effect has long since passed.
Another rousing meeting of Libertarians For Authoritarian And Bigoted Immigration Policies And Practices, convened at a faux libertarian blog and sponsored by the Republican Party, the Federalist Society, and Incels R Us.
Where we make arrangements to simply SHOOTING ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS.
What Kirkland doesn't understand is that the middle shall cease to hold -- and we could wind up with a country with checkpoints where anyone merely speaking English with a "foreign" accent is shot on sight. Anyone who has studied world history knows of situations where similar things have happened in the past....
And the other thing is that there are way more Volcels than Incels -- men who voluntarily keep their pants on because they don't want to associate with Feminazis. While it is none of Kirkland's business as to why we make such choices, a choice is not "involuntary."
This is your target audience, Volokh Conspirators.
And the reason your deans and most of your faculty colleagues wish you would leave.
Liberty, Regent, Ave Maria would love to have you! Probably South Texas College Of Law Houston, too.
Kirkland thinks that academia represents America -- it doesn't.
The "conspirators" are law professors and lawyers of national repute. And then there's you.
The Conspirators operate at the fringe of modern, legitimate, mainstream legal academia, tolerated but not greatly respected.
I would stack my resume against yours, or theirs, any time you wish, GK Hoffman. I would expect to observe I have had three careers better than anything you can present, starting from nothing.
Carry on, clinger. So far as guys like me permit guys like you to do anything in modern America.
Good thing for us that illegal aliens have that phrase tattooed on their foreheads so it’ll be easy to see who to shoot and who to leave alone.
Personally I think we should shoot anyone who advocates for extra-constitutional executions. Better watch your back, Ed.
Also Yankee fans because why not?
Bevis: Two words: "Lynch's Law."
It happened. Committees of Public Safety happened.
These are facts...
This seems like a good outcome for the issue. Title 42 does not really seem to do much. It a band-aid over a big problem. It would be nice if the lifting of T42 started some sort of real problem solving but I suspect that is not in the cards.
On a somewhat related note I see that McCarthy* is floating the idea of impeaching Biden for failing to secure the border.
I think impeaching Mayorkas would be more apt, but there is no doubt Biden is ultimately responsible.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/02/impeachment-is-the-only-weapon-left-to-fight-bidens-border-sabotage/
* Yes, it’s Andrew McCarthy the former US Attorney, not Speaker Kevin McCarthy, but when I initially saw the headline on Instapundit I was thinking it was Kevin. It does make the headline more attention getting.
Impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas would be interesting, if only because it would give the administration an equal opportunity to put Congress on trial for its failure to address immigration. I watched a recent interview of Mayorkas by Mike Wallace and thought the Secretary of HS did a good job of defending his actions.
Republicans in the House can yell from their podiums, but what do they have in evidence? Mayorkas is following the law. He cannot stop people from coming to this country and asking for asylum. It takes on average four years to process and decide an asylum claim, what is Congress doing to change that?
Neither party's establishment wants the immigration laws enforced. The difference is that the GOP establishment have a much greater need to pretend they want the laws enforced than the Democratic party establishment.
This was a major cause of conflict between Trump and the Republican establishment: He actually was trying to enforce the laws they routinely lie about wanting enforced.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/impeaching-biden-border-crisis-republicans-only-tool-andrew-mccarthy-says
Title 42 undoubtedly started for good and sound reasons, during the pandemic. When we were closing the border to "everyone", it made perfect sense.
Now, it's being kept up because of the screwed up nature of our immigration code, in conjunction with court rulings and enforcement.
There's a couple major issues at play.
1. The abuse of "asylum" provisions by those illegally immigrating. There is a real reason for asylum. But 99% of those claiming it, don't really fit the definition. That's for two reasons. 1. They don't actually have a credible asylum case. 2. If they did, they are supposed to claim asylum under the first country they enter (often Mexico). But what's actually going on is that they are claiming "asylum" as a form of economic immigration. And it breaks the system when it is done as such.
Once again: that isn't true. Nothing imposes an obligation on an asylum seeker to claim asylum under the first country he or she enters.
There is a doctrine in international law called the first country of asylum that allows a country to turn away an asylum seeker if there is another country the person has passed through that is a safe country that is willing to offer that person asylum. So if Mexico fits those criteria for a particular seeker, then the U.S. can reject that person's asylum claim on that basis. But the person is still eligible for asylum in the U.S., and the person has not done anything wrong in applying here.
Well, no, they haven't done anything wrong in [applying for] [asylum here.] They generally HAVE done something wrong in [applying for asylum] [here]. Rather than at all the US consulates they deliberately passed by. But there's a reason they did that.
The elephant in the room, which not all of us are determined to ignore, is that illegal immigrants are being coached to make a claim of asylum if they get caught.
The first question asked should be 1. “Did you apply for asylum in Mexico? Do you have proof of this?”
If the answer is no, they should be sent right back across the border.
They can "apply" in the US. Sure. They could also apply in Canada. Or at any of the dozens of embassies of other countries that they may have passed by.
But that application should be rejected, instantaneously, and the applicant sent back to the first country that they should have applied in (often Mexico). Otherwise, it's an abuse of the system, used for economic migration, and not actual asylum cases.
Not actually enforcing this concept leads to abuse of the system.
Why should the Supreme Court violate judicial restraint and invest its time and resources in deciding a difficult question that’s expected to become moot before it can reach a decision?
Why should they refrain from dragging their heels to avoid deciding a case, when if they take long enough it might go away?
Almost any case might go away if they take long enough, you know. If nothing else, the parties might die.
Will Biden cancel the Covid state of emergency in May? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe next year he'll declare some strain of tonsillitis an emergency, who knows?
I don't think they're displaying judicial constraint and economy. I think they're just flat out lazy and dysfunctional.
As far as I'm concerned, the Court should not consider the case moot at any time -- because Big Pharma intends to inflict a similar deliberate epidemic on us again as soon as they can, and so does Biden. Politicians create or make up emergencies to keep us scared so they can have more power.