Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22a544_n758.pdf
Page Number: 3.0

Cite as:  598 U. S. ____ (2022) 

3 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

we find that the States are permitted to intervene, and even
if  the  States  manage  on  remand  to  demonstrate  that  the
Title  42  orders  were  lawfully  adopted,  the  emergency  on
which those orders were premised has long since lapsed.  In 
April 2022, the federal government terminated the Title 42 
orders  after  determining  that  emergency  immigration  re-
strictions  were  no  longer  necessary  or  appropriate  to  ad-
dress  COVID–19.    87  Fed.  Reg.  19944.  The  States  may
question whether the government followed the right admin-
istrative  steps  before  issuing  this  decision  (an  issue  on 
which I express no view).  But they do not seriously dispute
that  the  public-health  justification  undergirding  the  Title 
42  orders  has  lapsed.   And  it  is  hardly  obvious  why  we
should rush in to review a ruling on a motion to intervene
in a case concerning emergency decrees that have outlived 
their shelf life. 

The  only  plausible  reason  for  stepping  in  at  this  stage 
that I can discern has to do with the States’ second request. 
The States contend that they face an immigration crisis at 
the  border  and  policymakers  have  failed  to  agree  on  ade-
quate measures to address it.  The only means left to miti-
gate  the  crisis,  the  States  suggest,  is  an  order  from  this
Court  directing  the  federal  government  to  continue  its 
COVID-era Title 42 policies as long as possible—at the very 
least during the pendency of our review.  Today, the Court
supplies just such an order.  For my part, I do not discount
the  States’  concerns.  Even  the  federal  government
acknowledges “that the end of the Title 42 orders will likely 
have disruptive consequences.”  Brief in Opposition for Fed-
eral Respondents 6.  But the current border crisis is not a 
COVID crisis.  And courts should not be in the business of 
perpetuating administrative edicts designed for one emer-
gency only because elected officials have failed to address a 
different emergency.  We are a court of law, not policymak-
ers of last resort.