The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 last week that a Trump-era restriction on legal immigration would remain in place while it considers a challenge from 19 Republican-led states.
The former president invoked a 1944 law which allows the U.S. to expel migrants without due process during a public health emergency.
President Biden had asked to end Title 42 as the country winds down other public health measures such as mask mandates.
Shruti Rana is a professor at IU’s Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies with a secondary appointment at the Maurer Law School. She specializes in international human rights.
Rana said the Supreme Court decision is unusual because the states involved in the suit were not part of the district court proceedings requiring the law to be overturned.
Read more: Barred from Medicaid, some pregnant immigrants have few options for care
“People view the Title 42 decision as a pretext,” Rana said. “That it's really about keeping people from entering the United States as opposed to having anything to do with preventing the spread of COVID.”
Rana said the same states hoping to uphold Title 42 have opposed every COVID measure that the Biden Administration has tried to implement.
Extending Title 42 allows thousands of potentially lawful asylum seekers to be deported to Mexico and other countries, but it may impact the rights of citizens in the long run.
Listen: The Supreme Court is discussing the removal of race-based admissions in schools
“I think the real fear is, every time you damage the rule of law, and every time you damage American law, it's gonna affect everybody in the United States, and it's going to affect Indiana,” Rana said.
According to the New York Times, since Title 42 was first invoked March 2020, it’s been used to expel around 2½ million migrants and asylum seekers.
