Title 42 block suggests ruling ‘was never properly in place’

Jaclyn Kelley-Widmer, professor of immigration law and director of Cornell University’s Immigration Law and Advocacy Clinic, says the court’s reasoning supports the contention that Title 42 was a political, anti-migrant move rather than a public health policy.

Kelley-Widmer says:

“The order to vacate Title 42 will be a huge relief to asylum seekers who will have restored access to request legal protections at the border. The ruling will allow a safer manner to request asylum, as the government will reestablish orderly processes at the border instead of forcing desperate people fleeing to safety to make dangerous crossings over perilous terrain. The court’s opinion suggests that not only is Title 42 no longer justified, but that it was never properly in place.

“The court determined that Title 42 was an overly broad ban that did little to protect public health and did not properly consider the impact such a ban would have on asylum seekers. The court said that the government is legally required to consider other options, such as quarantining at home, rather than enacting a total ban. The court’s reasoning supports advocates’ contention that Title 42 was a convenient excuse to close the southern border, a political, anti-migrant move rather than a carefully considered public health policy.”

Cornell University has dedicated television and audio studios available for media interviews.

– 30 –