U.S. District Judge Robert Summerhays of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana denied a motion to end Title 42 in California and New Mexico on Friday. An attorney filed the motion on behalf of a Salvadoran migrant stuck in Tijuana. The lawyer argued that California and New Mexico should not remain under Title 42 because those two border states are not a part of a lawsuit filed by other states to keep the policy in place.

This ruling by Judge Summerhays is not the final ruling on Title 42. That will come before May 23 when Title 42 is set to expire. Attorney Monika Langarica argued that enforcement of Title 42 is harming her client and others who remain in the city of Tijuana. She works for the UCLA Center for Immigration Law and Policy. She also represents Immigration Law Lab, a group that protects the rights of migrants in Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Texas, Washington, and Mexico. Langarica’s motion only applied to California and New Mexico and not to any of the 24 states that filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration to keep Title 42 in place.

Judge Summerhays issued a temporary restraining order, effective for fourteen days, against the lifting of Title 42 at the end of April. The lawsuit was filed by 24 states in Louisiana v. CDC. The states oppose lifting Title 42 and ending deportations based on the public health policy. Title 42 was put in place during the previous administration at the recommendation of the CDC as a tool to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. Open borders advocates criticize the policy with claims that immediate deportation does not allow illegals enough time to file asylum claims. Title 42 is the one effective policy used by the Trump administration that Joe Biden kept in place when he entered office.

Langarica held a press conference via Zoom outside the courthouse in Lafayette, Louisiana.

“We are disappointed the judge denied the motion to intervene,” said Langarica. “Arizona and Texas are two of the most hostile anti-immigrant states and should not be dictating immigration policy for the whole border or whole nation.”

Saying that “Arizona and Texas are two of the most hostile anti-immigrant states” is a typical trope used by activists for illegal immigration. States on the border want immigration laws followed and help from the federal government, as it is a federal obligation to keep the borders secure. We can argue that there is a need for immigration law reform but that is the job of Congress. In the meantime, border states are left holding the bag. Texas is the hardest hit and Texas taxpayers have paid an enormous price for Biden’s border crisis. It is not unreasonable for residents in border states to demand that laws are enforced.

Arizona, Louisiana and Missouri led the coalition of states challenging the Biden administration’s effort to lift Title 42. They argued that their states’ healthcare, law enforcement and education systems would be overly burdened by an influx of undocumented immigrants if the public health restriction is lifted.

In his arguments before Summerhays, Arizona Deputy Solicitor General Drew Ensign said the CDC didn’t consider those factors before deciding to lift Title 42.

He also said the CDC didn’t meet the notice-and-comment requirements under federal law.

More than one million people have been expelled at the southern border under Title 42 in fiscal year 2021. Estimates are that the number of illegals trying to enter the United States will triple when Title 42 expires on May 23. DHS and Sleepy Joe have been absolutely feckless thus far in securing the southern border. There is little hope of them suddenly taking their responsibility seriously now and implementing measures that relieve Border Patrol and other law enforcement of the burdens they carry in doing their jobs. The number of migrants illegally crossing the border is at historically high levels. It will only get worse as Title 42 expires, if it does, and the months with traditionally high migration activity continue. Lifting Title 42 is an open invitation for more to come.