The date of hearing is fixed in the Supreme Court Arizona v. Mayorkas On March 1. The question before the Court is whether states may intervene to maintain the Title 42 policy of barring entry to certain noncitizens entering the country through Canada or Mexico. The Biden administration has sought to repeal the policy, and a district court in D.C. has ruled that using Title 42 to restrict entry into the country is illegal. Arizona v. Mayorkas Title 42 stems from efforts by some states to defend the mandate and challenge this decision. A separate challenge to the Biden administration’s decision to revoke the order is currently pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
The Biden administration filed it yesterday Qualifications are brief inside Arizona v. Mayorkas, in which the solicitor general suggested the case would become moot before being decided because the Biden administration has announced that the COVID-19 state of emergency will end in May. From the short:
Since the granting of this Court’s charter, Congress has considered legislation that would immediately end the current public health emergency. In response, the government announced for the first time that the state of emergency was allowed to expire on May 11, 2023. Absent other relevant developments, the end of the public health emergency would (among other consequences) nullify Title 42 orders. Case The government recently announced its intention to adopt new Title 8 policies to address the situation at the border following the expiration of Title 42 orders. . . .
The expected end of the public health emergency on May 11, and the consequential expiration of the operative Title 42 order, will sum up this case: Because the Title 42 order “will expire by its own terms,” this case seeks only prospective relief and will appear. no[] A ‘live case or controversy.’ Trump v. International Refugee Assistance, 138 S. Ct. 353, 353 (2017) (citations omitted) (quoting Burke v. Barnes, 479 US 361, 363 (1987)). In that event, the government will ask the appellate court to dismiss the private respondents’ case as pending with directions to vacate the district court’s judgment and remand. see United States v. Munsingware, 340 US 36, 39 (1950). And since the contention in the underlying case would also moot petitioners’ intervention efforts, it would likewise be appropriate for this Court to vacate the appellate order denying intervention and remand with directions to dismiss petitioners’ motions. talk
If the court wants to further shrink its already shrinking docket — perhaps to allow more time to issue more opinions — this will provide them with an opportunity to do so.