Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody announced last week that she is taking action to keep the Title 42 Order in place by challenging the Biden administration’s effort to end it.
Moody is joined by 20 other attorneys general in filing an amended complaint to a previous action filed by Arizona, Louisiana and Missouri.
The Title 42 Order is a rule issued during the COVID-19 pandemic that allows border agents to quickly expel migrants attempting to enter the U.S. who traveled from a country where a communicable disease is present. Earlier this month, President Joe Biden announced plans to terminate the Title 42 Order effective May 23. The Department of Homeland Security estimates that there might already be 25,000 migrants waiting in shelters just south of the border who will seek to enter the U.S. once the order is no longer in effect. There are also projections that U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents could see up to 18,000 migrants a day after the Order is terminated.
“Ending Title 42 would be a disaster and further the chaos at the southwest border that is making it easier for drug cartels and human smugglers to advance their illicit practices in our country. As attorney general of the state of Florida, I am fighting back against all of President Biden’s unlawful immigration policies in an effort to force his administration to do its job and protect Americans,” Moody said.
The Centers for Disease and Control and Prevention issued the Title 42 Order that has been in effect since March 2020. The Trump and Biden administrations have used the Order to expel thousands of migrants.
Moody is joined by the attorneys general of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming in the amended complaint filed in the Western District Court of Louisiana. The amended complaint asks the court to enjoin the Biden administration’s attempt to terminate the Title 42 Order because the administration did not conduct notice and comment as required by the Administrative Procedure Act and because the termination is arbitrary and capricious.
Author
