WASHINGTON: The Supreme Court is keeping pandemic-era limits on immigration in place indefinitely, dashing hopes of immigration advocates who had been anticipating their end this week.
In a ruling Tuesday, the Supreme Court extended a temporary stay that Chief Justice John Roberts issued last week. Under the court’s order, the case will be argued in February and the stay will be maintained until the justices decide the case.
The limits, often referred to as Title 42 in reference to a 1944 public health law, were put in place under then-President Donald Trump at the beginning of the pandemic. Under the restrictions, officials have expelled asylum-seekers inside the United States 2.5 million times and turned away most people who requested asylum at the border on grounds of preventing the spread of COVID-19.
Immigration advocates sued to end the policy, saying it goes against American and international obligations to people fleeing to the US to escape persecution. They’ve also argued that the policy is outdated as coronavirus treatments improve.
The Supreme Court’s decision comes as thousands of migrants have gathered on the Mexican side of the border, filling shelters and worrying advocates who are scrambling to figure out how to care for them.
“We are deeply disappointed for all the desperate asylum seekers who will continue to suffer because of Title 42, but we will continue fighting to eventually end the policy,” said Lee Gelernt, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, which had been arguing to end Title 42′s use.
The ruling Tuesday said specifically that the Supreme Court will review the issue of whether the states have the right to intervene in the legal fight over Title 42. Both the federal government and the immigration advocates have argued that the states waited too long to intervene and even if they hadn’t waited so long, that they don’t have sufficient standing to intervene.
In a dissent, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Ketanji Brown Jackson said that even if the court were to find the states have the right to intervene and Title 42 was lawfully adopted “.... the emergency on which those orders were premised has long since lapsed.”
The judges said the “current border crisis is not a COVID crisis.”
“And courts should not be in the business of perpetuating administrative edicts designed for one emergency only because elected officials have failed to address a different emergency. We are a court of law, not policymakers of last resort,” the justices wrote.
A federal judge sided with advocates in November and set a Dec. 21 deadline to end the policy. Conservative-leaning states appealed to the Supreme Court, warning that an increase in migration would take a toll on public services and cause an “unprecedented calamity” that they said the federal government had no plan to deal with.
Roberts, who handles emergency matters that come from federal courts in the nation’s capital, issued a stay to give the court time to more fully consider both sides’ arguments.
The federal government asked the Supreme Court to reject the states’ effort while also acknowledging that ending the restrictions abruptly would likely lead to “disruption and a temporary increase in unlawful border crossings.”
The precise issue before the court is a complicated, largely procedural question of whether the states should be allowed to intervene in the lawsuit, which had pitted advocates for the migrants against the federal government. A similar group of states won a lower court order in a different court district preventing the end of the restrictions after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced in April that it was ending use of the policy.
Until the judge’s November order in the advocates’ lawsuit, the states had not sought to take part in that case. But they say that the administration has essentially abandoned its defense of the Title 42 policy and they should be able to step in. The administration has appealed the ruling, though it has not tried to keep Title 42 in place while the legal case plays out.
US Supreme Court keeps immigration limits in place indefinitely
https://arab.news/g57fw
US Supreme Court keeps immigration limits in place indefinitely
’American? No!’ says Greenland after latest Trump threat
NUUK: Greenland’s political parties said they did not want to be under Washington as US President Donald Trump again suggested using force to seize the mineral-rich Danish autonomous territory, raising concern worldwide.
The statement late Friday came after Trump repeated that Washington was “going to do something on Greenland, whether they like it or not.”
European capitals have been scrambling to come up with a coordinated response after the White House said this week that Trump wanted to buy Greenland and refused to rule out military action.
“We don’t want to be Americans, we don’t want to be Danish, we want to be Greenlanders,” the leaders of five parties in Greenland’s parliament said in a joint statement.
“The future of Greenland must be decided by Greenlanders,” they added.
“No other country can meddle in this. We must decide our country’s future ourselves — without pressure to make a hasty decision, without procrastination, and without interference from other countries.”
France’s Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said in an interview published Saturday that Trump’s “blackmail must stop.”
But he also said he did not believe a US military intervention would happen.
“Greenland is a European territory, placed under the protection of NATO. I would add that the Europeans have very powerful means to defend their interests,” he said.
Fears of invasion
According to a poll published Saturday by Danish agency Ritzau, more than 38 percent of Danes think the United States will launch an invasion of Greenland under the Trump administration.
A Danish colony until 1953, Greenland gained home rule 26 years later and is contemplating eventually loosening its ties with Denmark.
Many Greenlanders remain cautious about making this a reality.
Julius Nielsen, a 48-year-old fisherman in the capital Nuuk, told AFP: “American? No! We were a colony for so many years. We’re not ready to be a colony again, to be colonized.”
“I really like the idea of us being independent, but I think we should wait. Not for now. Not today,” Pitsi Mari, who works in telecoms, told AFP.
“I feel like the United States’ interference disrupts all relationships and trust” between Denmark and Greenland, said Inaluk Pedersen, a 21-year-old shop assistant.
The coalition currently in power is not in favor of a hasty independence.
The only opposition party, Naleraq, which won 24.5 percent of the vote in the 2025 legislative elections, wants to cut ties as quickly as possible but it is also a signatory of the joint declaration.
“It’s time for us to start preparing for the independence we have fought for over so many years,” said MP Juno Berthelsen in a Facebook post.
Vast natural resources
Denmark and other European allies have voiced shock at Trump’s threats on Greenland, a strategic island between North America and the Arctic where the United States has had a military base since World War II.
Trump says controlling the island is crucial for US national security given the rising military activity of Russia and China in the Arctic.
“We’re not going to have Russia or China occupy Greenland. That’s what they’re going to do if we don’t,” the US president said Friday.
“So we’re going to be doing something with Greenland, either the nice way or the more difficult way,” he added.
Both Russia and China have increased military activity in the region in recent years, but neither has laid any claim to the vast icy island.
Greenland has also attracted international attention in recent years for its vast natural resources including rare earth minerals and estimates that it could possess huge oil and gas reserves.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has warned that an invasion of Greenland would end “everything,” meaning the transatlantic NATO defense pact and the post-World War II security structure.
Flurry of diplomacy
“I’m a fan of Denmark, too, I have to tell you. And you know, they’ve been very nice to me,” Trump said.
“But you know, the fact that they had a boat land there 500 years ago doesn’t mean that they own the land.”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio is due to meet next week with Denmark’s foreign minister and representatives from Greenland.
A flurry of diplomacy is under way as Europeans try to head off a crisis while at the same time avoiding the wrath of Trump, who is nearing the end of his first year back in power.
Trump had offered to buy Greenland in 2019 during his first presidential term but was rebuffed.
