American Dream or American Nightmare: The Expiration of Title 42 & What It Means For Asylum Seekers

Photo Credit: https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2023/5/14/title-42-ends-asylum-rules-change-at-tijuana-san-diego-border

Authored By: Ohtra Awad

May 17, 2023

For many years, the United States has acted as a symbol of new beginnings. A place where anyone can become someone, build a legacy, or live in peace away from the terrors or ruins of their home country. Coined as the American dream, the U.S. has acted as a place of refuge since its founding. The first newcomers to the Americas were those seeking religious freedom, attempting to escape British rule. These American pioneers formed the first colonies with the promise of treating everyone equally and laying the framework for what would eventually become fundamental freedoms for all.

With the expiration of Title 42, the question of whether the American dream still exists begs attention. The Trump Administration introduced the enactment of Title 42 to deter the spread of Covid-19.[i] Title 42 granted the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) the ability to block noncitizens from entering the U.S. for public health purposes.[ii] From its enactment in 2020, Title 42 was used more than 2.8 million times to immediately expel migrants to their home country without allowing them to seek asylum.[iii]

Although in place for over three years, Title 42 did not go unchallenged. As seen in Huisha-Huisha v. Mayorkas, a class of noncitizens involving a group of asylum-seeking families brought an action against the Secretary of Homeland Security, alleging violations of several acts, including the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Public Health Service Act which arose from the Title 42 policy that “prohibited introduction into [the] United States of certain noncitizens to prevent [the] spread of Covid-19.”[iv] Here, the court strayed away from the Title 42 policy and decided that memos issued by the CDC introducing certain persons into the U.S. would be suspended.[v] Furthermore, the court decided Title 42 to be “arbitrary and capricious,” which prevented Defendants from applying the Title 42 policy to plaintiff class members.[vi]

As Title 42 expired Thursday, May 11, 2023, the U.S. braces itself for a new era of immigration policies. Set forth by the Biden Administration, the new set of guidelines calls for a harsher crackdown on illegal immigration while providing a new legal pathway for migrants to cross the border more efficiently.[vii] The expiration is anticipated to cause a surge of immigration at the border between Texas and Mexico, roughly 10,000 migrants a day are expected to be crossing the southern border.[viii]

However, the day prior to the expiration of Title 42, President Biden acknowledged that a new rule would be introduced. The administration introduced a new law that has the potential to limit asylum dramatically.[ix] Due to the expiration of Title 42, those that do not use available lawful pathways to enter the United States will face more significant repercussions. Those who arrive at the border without using lawful avenues will be presumed ineligible for asylum, whereas under Title 42, immigration officials were able to quickly turn away migrants at the southern border.[x]

The expiration of Title 42 means that the Biden administration will revert to Title 8 when deciding whether migrants have a lawful reason to seek asylum in the United States.[xi]  Title 8 legislation has been active throughout the usage of Title 42; however, moving forward migrants will now only be subjected to regulations under Title 8. The most significant difference between the two pieces of legislation is that Title 8 typically allows more time for migrants to submit asylum claims than they were granted under Title 42. [xii]

Even though Title 8 will be restored with the expiration of Title 42, many urge Congress to introduce new legislation to supplement Title 8.[xiii] Title 8’s deportation consequences, along with the limited legal pathways to parole some migrants into the U.S. from abroad, has been scrutinized by Biden’s Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.[xiv] Mayorkas claims that the state of the U.S. immigration lacks vital resources such as personnel, facilities, and transportation.[xv] Mayorkas has anticipated the surge in immigration for approximately two years, which led him to release the DHS Plan for Southwest Border Security and Preparedness in April 2022, which outlined a six-pillar plan to manage an increase in immigration once Title 42 expired.[xvi] The plan was later updated in preparation for Title 42’s expiration.

In addition, the Department of Justice and Homeland Security released a rule on May 10, 2023, implementing an asylum “transit ban” rule.[xvii] The transit ban penalizes those that have entered the U.S. irregularly to fail to apply for protection in other nations they cross through on their way to the U.S.[xviii] In essence, the transit ban would apply to all non-Mexican migrants, except non-accompanied minors, who had not been pre-approved under one of Biden’s parole programs.[xix]  The transit ban is said to be questionable by onlookers as it could endanger the lives of many thousands of people seeking asylum. Moreover, the transit ban will affect people who, even though on U.S. soil, “will be denied the legal right to seek protection”, which could potentially be in violation of U.S. asylum law.[xx] This could have a potential impact on the way this matter is litigated, and which protections are afforded to asylum seekers under the U.S. Constitution.

A similar ban was introduced by the Trump Administration in 2020. Still, it was quickly struck down in Al Otro Lado v. Wolf.[xxi] The transit ban under Trump’s presidency sought to expel thousands of asylum seekers from accessing the U.S. asylum process. The legality of the transit ban, which was applied to asylum seekers who were turned back at the U.S.-Mexico border, was challenged by various legal services organizations.

The question now is whether or not the new transit ban under Biden’s Administration will be struck down as seen during Trump’s Administration. Only time will tell, but for now, we are left with the daunting question of whether this will be an American dream or an American nightmare for those seeking asylum in the U.S.


[i] Title 42 Explained: What is it, why is it ending, what’s next?, The Hill (May 11, 2023), https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4000948-title-42-explained-what-is-it-why-is-it-ending-whats-next/.

[ii] Id.

[iii] Id.

[iv] Huisha-Huisha v. Mayorkas, No. 21-100 (EGS), 2022 WL 16948610, *1 (D.D.C. Nov. 15, 2022).

[v] Id. at *16.

[vi] Id.

[vii] Migrants Face New Border Reality as Title 42 Pandemic Restrictions Expire, PBS News Hour (May 12, 2023), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/migrants-face-new-border-reality-as-title-42-pandemic-restrictions-expire.

[viii] Title 42 Explained: What is it, why is it ending, what’s next?, The Hill (May 11, 2023), https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4000948-title-42-explained-what-is-it-why-is-it-ending-whats-next/.

[ix] Id.

[x] Title 42 Immigration Policy Has Expired as Border Officials Prepare for a Possible Influx, NBC News (May 12, 2023), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/live-blog/live-updates-title-42-immigration-policy-set-expire-midnight-rcna83908.

[xi] Id.

[xii] What is Title 8 Immigration Law? And What Happens When Title 42 Ends?, ABC Eyewitness News (May 11, 2023),  https://abc7chicago.com/title-8-immigration-law-42-explained-vs/13234991/#:~:text=Title%208%2C%20which%20includes%20decades,were%20afforded%20under%20Title%2042.

[xiii] Id.

[xiv] Id.

[xv] Id.

[xvi] DHS and DOJ Finalize Rule to Incentive Use of Lawful Immigration Pathways, Homeland Security (May 10, 2023),  https://www.dhs.gov/news/2023/05/10/dhs-and-doj-finalize-rule-incentivize-use-lawful-immigration-pathways.

[xvii] Weekly U.S.-Mexico Border Update: Title 42 Ends, WOLA (May 12, 2023),  https://www.wola.org/2023/05/weekly-u-s-mexico-border-update-title-42-ends/.

[xviii] Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security Release Details of Dangerous New Asylum Transit Ban, American Immigration Council (February 21, 2023), https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/news/department-justice-and-department-homeland-security-release-details-dangerous-new- asylum#:~:text=As%20described%20in%20the%20NPRM,in%20another%20country%20before%20arrival.

[xix] Id.  

[xx] Weekly U.S.-Mexico Border Update: Title 42 Ends, WOLA (May 12, 2023),  https://www.wola.org/2023/05/weekly-u-s-mexico-border-update-title-42-ends/.

[xxi] Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security Release Details of Dangerous New Asylum Transit Ban, American Immigration Council (Feb. 21, 2023), https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/news/department-justice-and-department-homeland-security-release-details-dangerous-new- asylum#:~:text=As%20described%20in%20the%20NPRM,in%20another%20country%20before%20arrival.

Are College and Graduate Students Entitled to Tuition and Fee Refunds for the Spring 2020 Semester?

Photo Credit:  https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/hr-magazine/pages/0614-tuition-assistance.aspx (last visited April 1, 2021).

Written By: Cecile G. Nicolson
Editor-in-Chief, American Journal of Trial Advocacy

          January of 2020 started with hopeful visions for the beginning of a new decade.  College and graduate students across the country returned to campuses for a new semester, thinking little of the novel coronavirus.  However, as the virus rapidly spread, schools began creating plans for online learning.  Continue reading “Are College and Graduate Students Entitled to Tuition and Fee Refunds for the Spring 2020 Semester?”

Playing Games with the Sherman Act: Epic Games v. Apple

Photo Credit: https://gammalaw.com/ruling-maintains-epic-v-apple-status-quo-for-trial/ (last visited March 31, 2021).

Written By: Hunter A. Milliman
Member, American Journal of Trial Advocacy

          During the COVID-19 pandemic, amidst working from home and adjusting to prolonged periods of minimal human interaction, many people have found their need for social interaction can be satisfied through video games.  The video games industry is booming during the pandemic,[1] and that’s certainly the case for Epic Games’ smash hit—the online multiplayer game Fortnite.[2]  Among this industry success, however, Epic Games took a hit when Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store in August of 2020.[3] Continue reading “Playing Games with the Sherman Act: Epic Games v. Apple”

Ending the War on Drugs: Decriminalizing Drug Possession

Photo Credit: https://www.theverge.com/2014/5/28/5757126/nypd-will-begin-carrying-narcan-kits-to-reverse-heroin-overdoses (last visited March 16, 2021).

Written By: McKenzie Meade
Member, American Journal of Trial Advocacy

Did Oregon take the first real step in ending the war on drugs?

            Almost fifty years later, America’s war on drugs continues. President Richard Nixon first coined this phrase in June 1971, when he declared drug abuse as “public enemy number one.”[i] Subsequent to this declaration, the number of people incarcerated for drug offenses drastically escalated in America, especially if you were a person of color.[ii] That was because President Nixon attempted to combat this war by “utilizing policies of prohibition” and invoking mandatory sentencing requirements.[iii] However, none of this worked. President Nixon’s strategy seemed to only further drug abuse, violence, and death.[iv] Continue reading “Ending the War on Drugs: Decriminalizing Drug Possession”

American Children Are Under Sexual Attack

Photo Credit: https://cesie.org/en/project/stop/ (last visited Feb. 25, 2021).

Written By: Heather Sutton
Member, American Journal of Trial Advocacy

          Considering the recently exposed Epstein fiasco, exempt registration status laws in California for sex with minors (subject to limitations), and the large-scale dissemination of the “social commentary” Cuties’ by Netflix, a discerning and concerned citizen can reach no conclusion other than—American Children are under Sexual Attack. Continue reading “American Children Are Under Sexual Attack”

The Learned-Intermediary Doctrine—Pharmacy Protections and Responsibilities

Image source: here (last visited Feb. 17, 2021).

Written By: Paul Sparkman
Senior Associate Editor, American Journal of Trial Advocacy

          A manufacturer of a dangerous product generally must warn the consumer of potential injury resulting from the use of its product. However, in many cases drug manufacturers avoid liability for failing to warn of dangers because the learned-intermediary doctrine has shifted the duty to inform the consumer elsewhere.[i] The doctrine holds that liability for failure to warn about side-effects and other inherent dangers of prescription drugs and other treatments should not be attributed to the drug manufacturers. Continue reading “The Learned-Intermediary Doctrine—Pharmacy Protections and Responsibilities”

More Than Skin Deep: New York’s More Stringent Regulations in Cosmetic Safety

Image source: https://cdn10.phillymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/harmful-ingredients-skincare.jpg (last visited Feb. 16, 2021).

Written By: Brettlyn Miller
Research and Writing Editor, American Journal of Trial Advocacy

          Recently, the New York legislature voted to amend New York’s environmental conservation act in order to provide more stringent regulations on cosmetic and personal care products containing the ingredient 1,4-dioxane. Continue reading “More Than Skin Deep: New York’s More Stringent Regulations in Cosmetic Safety”

You Don’t Have to Go Home, But You Can’t Stay Here: The JPML’s Recent Decisions Regarding Consolidation of Cases against Insurance Carriers for Business Interruption Coverage

Photo Credit: Link Here (last visited February 9, 2021).

Written By: David Newman
Editor in Chief, American Journal of Trial Advocacy

          Beginning in March 2020, many small businesses across the country struggled to stay afloat after state and local governments began implementing lockdowns and restrictions on businesses in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.[1]  These lockdowns and restrictions caused more than 1.4 million small businesses to shut-down or temporarily close in the 2nd quarter of 2020.[2] For the businesses that did survive, many experienced significant cash losses from the involuntary shut-downs.  As a result, many businesses began filing claims for business interruption coverage under their property or casualty insurance policies. Continue reading “You Don’t Have to Go Home, But You Can’t Stay Here: The JPML’s Recent Decisions Regarding Consolidation of Cases against Insurance Carriers for Business Interruption Coverage”

Toxic Tributaries: The Result of Hamstrung Regulation, Lack of Enforcement, and Hasty Permitting of Industrial Discharge Permits

Photo Credit: https://www.activistpost.com/2013/04/7-tap-water-toxins.html (last visited January 29, 2021).

Written By: Dylan Martin
Member, American Journal of Trial Advocacy

          Pollution, climate change, and environmental regulations have been at the forefront of political and legal debate for years and had reemerged once again throughout the 2020 Presidential campaign. Naturally, depending on the swing of the political pendulum of power in the White House every 4 to 8 years, immense changes and rollbacks of environmental protections come and go with the change in the political tide. According to a recent New York Times analysis, since the beginning of President Trump’s administration in 2016, there have been “100 environmental protections that have been reversed or in the process of being rolled back.”[i] To be fair, even with significant rollbacks of protections there will always be the occasional violation or underenforcement of an environmental regulation. Continue reading “Toxic Tributaries: The Result of Hamstrung Regulation, Lack of Enforcement, and Hasty Permitting of Industrial Discharge Permits”

Changes to DACA Filing Recommendations in Light of: Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of University of California Supreme Court

Photo Credit: https://www.carnegie.org/topics/topic-articles/immigration/supreme-court-rules-continue-daca/ (Last Visited November 12, 2020).

Written By: Grey Robinson
Member, American Journal of Trial Advocacy

          On June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court issued its ruling on Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of University of California, a case concerning the potential termination of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) program.[i]  The Court in a 5-4 opinion,  ultimately rejected the termination of the DACA program on administrative grounds. Continue reading “Changes to DACA Filing Recommendations in Light of: Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of University of California Supreme Court”